1 s2.0 S0360131522000550 Main

Computers & Education 182 (2022) 104484
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
Digital badges affect need satisfaction but not frustration in males

in higher education
Linda Schürmann *, Claudia Quaiser-Pohl
University of Koblenz-Landau, Universitaetsstrasse 1, 56070, Koblenz, Germany
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Digital badges are debated as a possible motivator in higher education, but their impact on basic
Basic needs psychological need satisfaction and frustration still requires research. Particularly need frustra
Need frustration tion has not been addressed systematically yet, specifically in relation to gender. Investigating
Digital badges
whether and how badges affect both need satisfaction and need frustration, this study extends
Higher education
Gender
existing research on badges, motivation, and gender and discusses implications for theory and
practice. During a digital seminar lasting for 8 weeks, we conducted a mixed-method experiment
with N = 64 (32 women) undergraduates (M = 22.95 years, SD = 4.06). Participants were divided
into an experimental (badges) and a control condition (no badges). We measured need satisfac
tion and frustration with pre-post online questionnaires. Univariate two-way analyses of variance
revealed no effects of condition or gender. In the badge condition only, we used repeated-
measurement analyses of variance and qualitative content analyses. Females and males esti
mated the seminar as equally need-satisfying, but males perceived working with badges as less
need-satisfying than working for the seminar overall. Need frustration was not affected. Quali
tative data implied that the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness could be better
supported by underlining the value, ease of use, and social aspects of badges. Gender effects might
exist because of a male preference for competitive game elements or ease of use. Conclusively,
digital badges, even if not perceived as particularly need-supportive, can be a motivator in digital
learning without frustrating the basic needs. This work adds empirical evidence from the
perspective of need frustration to existing research on motivation and gamification. It can be
conducive to an optimal promotion of female and male students’ motivation in digital learning.
1. Introduction
Digital badges are visual representations of accomplishments, skills, knowledge, experiences, interests, or affiliations awarded in
recognition of a particular action or series of actions related to specific content within a digital environment (Antin & Churchill, 2011;
Fanfarelli & McDaniel, 2019; Gibson et al., 2015). Digital badges hold metadata on the badges’ context (e.g., source), requirements,
and meaning (Alt, 2021; Finkelstein et al., 2013; IMS Global Learning Consortium, 2021). The term digital badge is often used
interchangeably with the term micro-credential. Micro-credentials typically contain metadata on the central authority (e.g., an aca
demic institution) validating the badge (Fanfarelli & McDaniel, 2019). When digital badges use open-source technology and are
therefore portable and integrable into various digital environments, they are open digital badges (Fanfarelli & McDaniel, 2019;
* Corresponding author. Institute of Psychology, Universitätsstraße 1, 56070, Koblenz, Germany.

E-mail address: lschuerm@uni-koblenz.de (L. Schürmann).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104484
Received 6 August 2021; Received in revised form 18 February 2022; Accepted 23 February 2022
Available online 26 February 2022
0360-1315/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Schürmann and C. Quaiser-Pohl Computers & Education 182 (2022) 104484
Ifenthaler et al., 2016). Badges are used in various contexts (Abramovich & Wardrip, 2016; Ifenthaler et al., 2016), e.g., business (e.g.,
Kumar, 2013; McGovern, 2019), health care (e.g., Heinert et al., 2020), or education (Gibson et al., 2015). Badge usage has increased
immensely during the last decade (Gibson et al., 2015), especially in higher education (Roy & Clark, 2019). Badge functions typically
include credentialing and rewarding, motivation, goal setting, social status, feedback, and information (de Sousa Borges et al., 2014;
Fanfarelli & McDaniel, 2019; van Roy et al., 2019). Hence, badges are used to engage and shape desired behavior, modify perceptions
and attitudes, and assess competencies at a more fine-grained level than regular grades or reports (Abramovich & Wardrip, 2016;
Fanfarelli & McDaniel, 2019; Jovanovic & Devedzic, 2015).
A major benefit of badges is their ability to motivate students (Dicheva et al., 2020; Gibson et al., 2015; Hakulinen et al., 2015), but
motivation faces specific challenges and opportunities in digital learning. For example, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are
criticized for high dropout rates and lack of motivation (e.g., Ortega-Arranz et al., 2019). Motivation was also an issue in digital
learning during the first Covid-19 lockdown (e.g., Aguilera-Hermida, 2020). As motivation is a key feature of learning (Howard et al.,
2021; Pintrich, 2003), badge impact on motivation can ultimately influence learning, knowledge retention, and academic achievement
(e.g., Dicheva et al., 2015; Putz et al., 2020). Therefore, motivation in the context of badges should be investigated in more detail.
Despite the “hype” and increasing implementation of badges (Roy & Clark, 2019), research on their impact on motivation is diverse
(Dichev & Dicheva, 2017) and reveals mixed results. Various studies report positive badge effects (e.g., Ding et al., 2018; Hakulinen
et al., 2015). Others state only modest, null, or even negative effects (Dicheva et al., 2020; Kyewski & Krämer, 2018; McDaniel et al.,
2012). Accordingly, badges do not seem to be a “silver bullet” (Roy & Clark, 2019, p. 2631). One reason for different findings on badge
impact might be that badges could have distinct effects on basic need satisfaction and frustration. Research has already investigated
badge impact on need satisfaction (Bräuer & Mazarakis, 2019; Sailer et al., 2017), but so far, it remains unknown how badges affect
both need satisfaction and frustration in the context of higher education.
1.1. Digital badges and motivation in education
Badges are a common feature of gamification, the use of game elements in non-game contexts and tasks (Deterding, 2011; Seaborn
& Fels, 2015), for example, in formal learning environments (see Zainuddin et al., 2020 for a systematic review of the impact of
gamification on learning). In education, badges serve three main goals. First, they are used to incentivize learner engagement in
positive learning behaviors. Second, they can map learning progress and foster discovery. Third, they can signal completion and
learning (Berge & Muilenburg, 2016; Gibson et al., 2015). Accordingly, badges are a pedagogical tool used to change existing learning
processes and incentivize positive learning behaviors in educational contexts (Sailer & Homner, 2020). Due to their meta-data, badges
document the badge recipient’s learning in a granular and individual yet reliable, accessible, and transparent way: Badges enable the
credentialing of otherwise unrecognized informal learning or soft-skills like teamwork, which makes them learner-centered, com
petence-based, and more specific than regular grades since all relevant information about the badge, e.g., the exact requirements to
obtain the badge and its issuing institution, are captured in its meta-data (Bowen & Thomas, 2014; Devedžić & Jovanović, 2015; Peck
et al., 2016). Badges are of value for graduates and employers because various digital contexts, including social media, allow for badge
integration (Antin & Churchill, 2011; Gamrat et al., 2014). Moreover, a student’s unique badge collection displays specific pathways
and areas of strength or competence within a topic (Becker & Nicholson, 2016) and evolves into an “expanded portfolio of verified
skills” (Peck et al., 2016, p. 85). Thereby, badges enable learning at larger scales, for instance, as micro-credentials in Massive Open
Online Courses (MOOCs) (Peck et al., 2016; Pursel et al., 2016). Peck et al. (2016) summarize that badges can transport “more and
better information than traditional types of educational records” (p. 82). Therefore, when used correctly, badges can be “more
meaningful than grades or other credentials” (Hickey & Schenke, 2019, p. 209).
Due to their potential to make education more personalized, accessible, and affordable (Randall et al., 2013), badges are applied
increasingly in formal education, including primary/elementary (e.g., Alexander & Neill, 2018; Boticki et al., 2015; Homer et al., 2018;
Yang et al., 2016), secondary/high schools (Abramovich et al., 2013; Davis & Klein, 2015; Shields & Chugh, 2017), workplace learning
(e.g., Gamrat et al., 2014), and especially in higher education (e.g., Abramovich, 2016; Alt, 2021; Cheng et al., 2018; Delello et al.,
2018; Dowling-Hetherington & Glowatz, 2017; Mah, 2016). Badge usage in practice has outpaced researchers’ understanding of the
mechanisms of gamification (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017). These mechanisms include the influence of badges on motivation (Krath et al.,
2021), which is why the present study focuses on badges as a common example of gamification in higher education.
While most studies on badges utilize a mix of game elements, research needs to investigate the impact of individual game elements
on motivation (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017). Initially, Hense and Mandl (2012) stated that badges may generate an “enormous amount”
(p. 20) of motivation. Corroborating this idea, higher education students have been found to perceive badges positively (Başal &
Kaynak, 2019; Delello et al., 2018) – but not always and under all circumstances (Haaranen et al., 2014; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Kyewski &
Krämer, 2018). Research in the context of both education and gaming discusses the possible risks and negative consequences of
gamification in general (Andrade et al., 2016; Toda et al., 2018) and badges in particular (Biles & Plass, 2016; Hanus & Fox, 2015).
One aspect to consider regarding the impact of badges on motivation is that not only the quantity but also the quality of motivation
matters for learning (Ryan & Deci, 2017, 2020). Badges may support motivation but can also harm its quality (Hickey & Schenke,
2019; Noyes et al., 2020).
1.2. Digital badges, need satisfaction, and need frustration
Self-Determination Theory (SDT, Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017, 2020) differentiates various types of learning motivation
on a continuum from fully self-regulated to entirely controlled (Howard et al., 2017). The prototype of self-regulated motivation is
2
intrinsic motivation, because it refers to natural, spontaneous behavior when individuals “feel free to follow their inner interests” (Deci
& Ryan, 2000, p. 234). In the context of learning, intrinsic motivation means that something is learned for the sake of itself, e.g., out of
interest or enjoyment. Ryan and Deci (2020) summarize research on intrinsic motivation in the classroom and mention that educators
start to use gamification as a means to motivate via the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs (BPNs). Ryan and Deci (2020)
conclude that gamification can satisfy the BPNs. Thereby, gamification may support more self-regulated forms of motivation (see also
Rigby & Ryan, 2011). Self-regulated forms of motivation, e.g., intrinsic motivation, are more beneficial for learning than less
self-regulated forms of motivation (see also Taylor et al., 2014). Accordingly, badges should at best support self-regulated instead of
controlled forms of motivation when used as pedagogical tools.
However, research concerning the impact of badges on intrinsic motivation is inconclusive (Facey-Shaw et al., 2020). Some studies
report a positive impact of badges, combined with other game elements, on intrinsic motivation (or perceived enjoyment, a factor of
intrinsic motivation, Wilde et al., 2009) (Adukaite et al., 2017; Jurgelaitis et al., 2019). Others found no badge influence on intrinsic
motivation but other motivational variables like persistence (Groening & Binnewies, 2019) and engagement (Dicheva et al., 2020).
Some even note a decrease in intrinsic motivation (Hanus & Fox, 2015; Kyewski & Krämer, 2018). Adverse effects may occur when
badge users perceive badges as extrinsic rewards (Deci et al., 2001), thereby externalizing intrinsic motivation (Cheema & Velez,
2021), which may result in an external perceived locus of causality (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Deci et al. (2001) described rewards to
decrease intrinsic motivation when given for an initially interesting task in a tangible, expectable way. Learners might, for example,
stop working for a class because they are interested in its contents and start working only to earn badges. In this case, students start to
learn for an objective separate from the action itself, marking extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Moreover, badges can be
disadvantageous for specific student groups. For example, badges affect low-performing students negatively when they are competitive
(Andrade et al., 2016). Nevertheless, when badges have value outside the learning environment or have value and signaling power
about skills and knowledge to the learner and others (West & Randall, 2016), they may even be intrinsically motivating (Ryan & Deci,
2017). Following these remarks, the question of how badges affect intrinsic motivation emerges. SDT states that all motivational
qualities, including intrinsic motivation, are determined by the satisfaction or frustration of the BPNs for autonomy, i.e., the need to
self-regulate and to feel a sense of volition and congruence in one’s behavior, the need for competence, i.e., the need to feel effective
and able, and the need for relatedness, i.e., the need to feel socially connected, loved, or contributing (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017).
SDT assumes that humans strive to satisfy the BPNs, and their environments can support or thwart these needs, resulting in need
satisfaction or frustration (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Vice versa, when a person’s environment, e.g., a teacher, does not support their BPNs or
even thwarts them, need satisfaction may decline or need frustration may incline, leading to a decrease of intrinsic motivation
(Gnambs & Hanfstingl, 2016). BPN support and thwarting are not equal to the individual perception of BPN satisfaction and frus
tration, which, in turn, influence the quality of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). For example, the motivational effect of having a choice
or not, which usually supports autonomy, differs in combination with an individual’s preference or compulsion for the respective
option (Wilde et al., 2018). Therefore, badge users’ perceptions can give important insights regarding how and why badges motivate
(or not) in a more differentiated way.
In a gamified class, badges belong to students’ learning environment. Just like the impact of a teacher who may or may not
encourage autonomous student behavior and thereby support or thwart the students’ need for autonomy, badges may influence
students’ perceived need satisfaction and frustration by supporting or thwarting the BPNs (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017, 2020; Rigby &
Ryan, 2011; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). Depending on how they are used as a pedagogical tool, badges might be perceived as, e.g.,
informative feedback (Cheema & Velez, 2021), a map of progress (Gibson et al., 2015), or rewards (Shields & Chugh, 2017). Notably,
need frustration and satisfaction share an asymmetrical relationship (Warburton et al., 2020): Need frustration emerges when a BPN is
not only deprived (lack of need satisfaction) but actively thwarted. For example, when students perceive badges as helpful to structure
learning and when they appreciate badges as informative and valuable feedback, these badges might support students’ need for
competence, resulting in perceived competence satisfaction. Those who feel that the badge system does not provide enough structure
and guidance might perceive a lack of competence support. Finally, however, if students perceive badges as confusing and when they
do not understand how badges work, their need for competence might be frustrated, which facilitates controlled types of motivation
like introjected or external motivation, amotivation (Bartholomew et al., 2018; Haerens et al., 2015), disengagement (Jang et al.,
2016), ill-being and non-optimal functioning (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). Hence, not only need satisfaction but also need frustration
might influence badge impact on motivation.
Badges have displayed a positive impact on self-efficacy and performance (Yang et al., 2016). Self-efficacy is conceptually related to
SDT (Krath et al., 2021) and especially to the need for competence (Rodgers et al., 2014). Regarding associations between badges and
BPN satisfaction and frustration in education, research is scarce. Those studies dealing with badge impact on the BPNs have primarily
focused on BPN satisfaction. Sailer et al. (2017), Zainuddin (2018), and Zainuddin et al. (2019) implemented badges and other
gamification elements and report positive associations, at least with one of the BPNs. On the contrary, however, Bräuer and Mazarakis
(2019) studied digital achievements and noted a negative impact on relatedness satisfaction. It could make a difference whether a
single game element or a combination of elements is used (Jagušt et al., 2018), so more research is needed to clarify the unique impact
of badges on the BPNs (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Facey-Shaw et al., 2018). The only study combining badges, BPN satisfaction, and
BPN frustration in higher education is a qualitative study by van Roy and Zaman (2019) with badges and other gamification elements.
The researchers found need-supportive badge perceptions but also risks of gamification for need frustration. However, they did not
specifically discuss need thwarting and its effect on perceived need frustration and impact on the quality of motivation through badge
usage.
It remains unknown how badges affect need frustration. Therefore, the present study investigated the unique impact of badges on
both perceived need satisfaction and need frustration. We thereby add a possible explanation for the inconclusive findings on badge
3
impact on motivation to date: Need frustration might be one of the reasons why badge usage can have a “dark side” (Andrade et al.,
2016, p. 176) leading towards undesired behavior, disengagement, declining effects over time, or performance loss (Toda et al., 2018).
Moreover, the inconclusive results so far might not only stem from differences on the side of badge implementation but also on the side
of the learner (Abramovich et al., 2013; Alt, 2021; Cheema & Velez, 2021; Reid et al., 2015; Smiderle et al., 2020; van Roy & Zaman,
2019). An individual factor affecting badge impact on the BPNs could be gender (Delello et al., 2018; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Noyes
et al., 2020; Pedro et al., 2015; Toda et al., 2019).
1.3. Gender, digital badges, and basic needs
Dichev and Dicheva (2017) criticize that studies dealing with single game elements, e.g., badges, vary in various aspects. One of
these aspects is gender. Research concerning the distinct impact of badges on females’ and males’ BPNs in higher education is scarce.
However, there is empirical evidence for gender differences in motivation in higher education in general and in technology acceptance
and digital skills. In combination, the following facts suggest that gender might also play a role in the context of badges and motivation:
D’Lima et al. (2014) report that females in higher education were more extrinsically motivated but mastery-oriented than males,
who were more performance-oriented. They also found the genders to differ in their intrinsic motivation, depending on their ethnicity.
Further, men displayed higher levels of self-efficacy than women. These differences also appear in technology acceptance (Cai et al.,
2017; Hanham et al., 2021), which is important because users’ digital skills might influence the acceptance and usage of gamification
in learning contexts (Panagiotarou et al., 2020). Men display more self-confidence about their computer skills than women (Li &
Kirkup, 2007), but differences in affect and self-efficacy regarding technology use are declining (Cai et al., 2017). Overall, boys have
been found to have a stronger preference for digital entertainment, e.g., digital game play in no learning context, than girls (Admiraal
et al., 2014), while females display a greater degree of satisfaction with digital learning than males (González-Gómez et al., 2012).
Specifically, during the Covid-19 pandemic, female university students were more ready for online learning than males (Chung et al.,
2020). In digital learning, gender might further interact with flow, which is associated with intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
Females’ flow experience in e-learning was more related to positive emotions and playfulness, while males’ flow experience was more
driven by competence factors (Rodríguez-Ardura & Meseguer-Artola, 2021). Tsay et al. (2018) describe women as more motivated in
gamified learning activities than men. In games and gamification, women appear less attracted to competitive game elements than men
(Buckley et al., 2017; Hartmann & Klimmt, 2006; Toda et al., 2019). Similarly, Koivisto and Hamari (2014) underline that in gamified
exercises, women indicated stronger social benefits and valued the ease of using gamification more than men. Thus, gender could
explain differences regarding which combinations of game elements (e.g., badges, points, and leaderboards, Werbach & Hunter, 2012)
work best.
Investigating badges in particular, it appears that females might perceive badges more positively than males. Elkordy (2016) found
significant gender differences in badge perception in a K-12 STEM learning environment. While all students perceived grades as more
important than badges, girls valued badges more than boys did. Similarly, Delello et al. (2018) report male students being less likely
than females to believe that digital badges positively impact students. Males were more critical of badges. Females also perceived a
more positive relation between badge usage, perceived playfulness, enjoyment, social benefits, and the received recognition and
reciprocity regarding badge usage in their social network (Codish & Ravid, 2017; Koivisto & Hamari, 2014; Tsay et al., 2018). Codish
and Ravid (2017) summarize that “male users focus most often on the usefulness of the technology, while female users are more
focused on the ease of use and enjoyment of the system and subjective norms” (p. 2007). This association may be adaptable to games
and gamification. Finally, Pedro et al. (2015) implemented badges and other gamification elements in a high school setting in a small
exploratory study. Overall, the non-gamified environment received better scores, and girls had lower perceived competence but higher
perceived choice and interest/enjoyment levels than boys in the gamified condition. Others, however, report no correlation between
badges, motivation, and gender (e.g., Denden et al., 2021).
In sum, findings on gender impact in the context of badges and motivation are inconclusive and lack systematic empirical data
(Dichev & Dicheva, 2017). No quantitative data exist regarding the association between badges, gender, and BPN satisfaction and
frustration in higher education. Nevertheless, there are gendered motivation differences in higher education and gender differences in
the context of digital learning and technology acceptance. In combination, these data suggest an inclusion of gender in badges and
motivation research. Therefore, we investigated possible interactions of gender with badge impact on motivation.
1.4. Questions and hypotheses
Investigating motivation from the perspective of both BPN satisfaction and frustration allows for a detailed, fine-grained
description of motivation, because need frustration entails distinct adverse consequences compared to a mere lack of need satisfac
tion (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). It could, therefore, be a vital factor in the explanation of the mechanisms behind badge impact.
However, research has not yet regarded the possible effects of badges on need frustration sufficiently. Gender is a variable that could
affect badge impact on motivation but has not been investigated sufficiently and systematically yet (Denden et al., 2021; Dichev &
Dicheva, 2017). Accordingly, the overarching question guiding the present study was: “How do digital badges affect BPN satisfaction
and frustration of males and females in higher education?“. In the following, we detail how the research question led to our hypotheses.
Based on the lack of research about need frustration in combination with the to-date inconclusive findings of badge impact on
motivation (e.g., Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Sailer et al., 2017), we assume there are differences in the BPN levels between participants
in a badge condition and a control condition. More concretely, we hypothesize that participants in a badge condition display different
levels of BPN satisfaction and frustration than participants in the control condition (Bräuer & Mazarakis, 2019; Sailer et al., 2017; van
4
Roy & Zaman, 2019) (Hypothesis 1.1). The association of gender with the effects of badges on BPN satisfaction and frustration has not
been investigated systematically and conclusively yet (e.g., Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Pedro et al., 2015), so gender might also
contribute to differences in badge impact on BPN satisfaction and frustration. Thus, we hypothesize that gender interacts with badge
usage regarding BPN satisfaction/frustration (Hypothesis 1.2).
Due to the mixed results of badge impact on the BPNs under different circumstances (van Roy & Zaman, 2018), it is further crucial
to get a more detailed impression about participants’ perception of working with badges in particular compared to their perception of
the seminar overall to answer the question of how badges affect BPN satisfaction and frustration of females and males in higher ed
ucation. Exploring the perspective of the participants in the badge condition may help to design more effective badges (Bell & Davis,
2016) and accounts for the fact that BPN support or thwarting only impact an individual’s quality of motivation through their
perceived BPN satisfaction and frustration (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Further, research needs to focus on the impact of unique game ele
ments to get a more differentiated picture of gamification impact on motivation (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017). Therefore, we investigate
badge user motivation in more detail, exploring male and female badge users’ perceptions of working with badges in particular
compared to their perception of working in the learning environment overall. Describing badge users’ perceptions helps to understand if
and how exactly badges as a unique game feature do or do not satisfy or frustrate the BPNs in the given learning environment, which
might enable further inferences for optimal badge usage. As badges might have a unique impact on motivation (e.g., Dichev & Dicheva,
2017; Hakulinen et al., 2015) compared to a combination of different game elements, we assume that badge users display differences in
BPN satisfaction and frustration when they focus on working for the seminar overall versus working for the same seminar with badges in
particular. More concretely, we hypothesize that there is a difference in BPN satisfaction/frustration among badge users (Hypothesis
2.1) comparing the two foci. Again, females and males might perceive badges differently, resulting in different levels of BPN satis
faction and frustration (e.g., Delello et al., 2018; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Noyes et al., 2020; Pedro et al., 2015). Thus, we hypothesize
interactions between gender and focus (working for a seminar overall versus working for the same seminar with badges in particular)
(Hypothesis 2.2).
Answering the research question, this study contributes to research by integrating empirical evidence of badge impact on need
frustration. This is significant for the field because comprehending how badges affect BPN frustration in addition to BPN satisfaction
might clarify the inconclusive findings of their positive and negative effects to date (Roy & Clark, 2019). Thereby, this study adds to a
more holistic view of motivation in the context of SDT and gamification. Due to the focus on badges and not on a combination of game
elements, the study helps to optimize digital badge usage in education by emphasizing their motivational benefits and avoiding
possible disadvantages for females and males, thereby contributing to a more granular understanding of how gamification as a broader
concept may support motivation and learning (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017). Digital learning is of growing importance in education (e.g.,
OECD, 2021), and this study can eventually be conducive to an optimal promotion of different students’ motivation in digital learning
environments.
2. Methods and material
2.1. Participants
Participants were N = 80 undergraduate students who registered for an online class as part of their bachelor’s program in
Educational Sciences. The class was a component of a mandatory Educational Sciences module, but the students could choose between
different seminar options regarding the seminar’s content. Registered students were randomly assigned to the experimental condition
with badges (n = 40) or control condition without badges (n = 40). Of all students, n = 64 participated in the voluntary questionnaires
for this study (24 men, 32 women, eight did not indicate gender. The final sample consisted of n = 38 participants in the badge
condition and n = 26 participants in the control condition. They were M = 22.95 (SD = 4.06) years old and in their M = 4.9th (SD =
1.91) semester. The class took place in the summer term of 2020 at a German university. All participants gave informed consent. The
experiment was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and has Research Ethics Board Approval.
2.2. Design
We measured the dependent variables, BPN satisfaction and frustration, the independent variable gender, prior knowledge as a
possible covariate (Abramovich et al., 2013), and post knowledge as an objective measure associated with motivation (Ryan & Deci,
2017). We conducted a randomized 2 (condition: badges vs. control) x 2 (gender: men vs. women) between-subjects experiment
regarding BPN satisfaction and frustration in a gamified online class. We further conducted 2 (gender: men vs. women) x 2 (focus:
badge motivation vs. seminar motivation) mixed model analyses of variance for BPN satisfaction/frustration among badge users only,
triangulating the findings with qualitative data on badge perception.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration

We measured autonomy, relatedness, and competence satisfaction and frustration, respectively, referring to the German version of
the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSF, Heissel et al., 2018). We adapted the wording to fit the
context, e.g., asking “In this seminar …” and having participants indicate on a 5-point Likert-scale “… I have choices and feel free in
what I do” (autonomy satisfaction) or “… most things feel as if I have to do them” (autonomy frustration). We removed one item for
5
relatedness frustration (“I feel that I only have superficial relations in this class”) for reliability improvement, see Table 1.
We added a modified, badge-specific version of the BPNSF (BPNSF–B, Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration - Focus
on Badges Scale, referring to Heissel et al., 2018) in the badge condition only. We modified the wording to focus on students’ moti
vation for working for the seminar with badges in particular, asking “The following items deal specifically with your experiences with
working with open digital badges for this seminar” and changing the wording of each item to fit badges. For example, “In this seminar, I
have choices and feel free in what I do” (BPNSF) became “By using digital open badges in this seminar, I have choices and feel free in
what I do” (BPNSF–B).
2.3.2. Badge perception

We included open questions about badge perception voluntarily answered in a free text by badge users only. Questions were, e.g.,
“Have the badges …” “… helped you to keep an overview over the seminar topics and if so, why?” to get more information on perceived
competence, or “… helped you to work on the seminar autonomously and if so, why?” for autonomy. We added “What do you find
worst when working with badges?“, “What do you find best when working with badges?“, “Do you have anything else to say about
badges?“, and “Would you prefer working with or without badges?” to get a deeper insight into badge perception.
2.3.3. Pedagogical lesson knowledge

We used sub-scales of the German Pedagogical Lesson Knowledge Survey (Pädagogisches Unterrichtswissen, PUW, König & Blömeke,
2010, see also for more information about the quality criteria) to measure prior and post performance. PUW measures motivating
competencies (seminar topic). It covers intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (5 items, max. points: 5), attributions (4 items, max. points:
4), and motivating strategies (4 open-answer items, max. points: 3). Twelve points could be reached.
2.4. Procedure
The study was conducted during a digital seminar at a German University for 8 weeks from May to July 2020. The digital class
comprised one organizational and four content blocks, each consisting of content input via literature and guiding tasks and questions, a
lecturer presentation and video explaining emphases, written tasks, questions for reflective practices, and an online check-up for each
block to assure that the respective contents had been read. The class was designed in a need-supportive way. Students handed in their
answers to tasks and reflective practice whenever they finished them and got individual, informative feedback (Reeve, 2009) within no
more than two days after. The students could work on all blocks except for the first one in their preferred pace and order. The lecturer
was available daily, except for the weekends, via email and video chat appointments. After each block, the students filled in a voluntary
questionnaire. The seminar groups differed only regarding usage or no usage of badges.
2.4.1. Badges
We designed badges with Open Badge Designer (Accredible, 2021), issued them with Open Badge Factory Ltd, 2021, and integrated
them in the digital learning platform Mahara (2021) with Open Badge Passport (Open Badge Factory Ltd, 2018). Thus, the badges used
were open badges (Mozilla Foundation, 2021) with real-life meaning (Rigby & Ryan, 2011), i.e., they had value beyond the mere
educational context of the seminar. The students could, for example, also use the badges in the work context by integrating them into
their social media to display their acquired knowledge about motivation to actual future employers.
We informed the students about the badges with a “badge roadmap”, see Fig. 1, and introduced the topic (Bräuer & Mazarakis,
2019, p. 238). Referring to Biles and Plass’ (2016) Educational Badge Typology, the utilized badges were related to the learning goals.
The meta-badges were credentials consisting of these process badges. Badges contained data on the issuer (the university), content, and
activities required for the badge. Students could also integrate badges into their social media. Sharing badges with other students was
voluntary to avoid unwanted, harmful competition while at the same time adding a social aspect to the badges (Pirker et al., 2014;
Ruipérez-Valiente et al., 2016). We created 27 badges, comprising nine meta-badges. Badges were awarded for completed reflective
exercises, task sheets, check-ups, and participation in the online questionnaire. For example, there were five badges for completed
check-ups. When students completed the check-up exercises for block 1, they handed in the tasks and got written informative feedback.
They got the badge when the task was accepted as “completed successfully”. After acquiring all check-up badges, students were
Table 1
Reliabilities as Cronbach’s α of all motivational scales at all points of measurement and the overall scale of t1-t4.
α t1 t2 t3 t4 Overall
BPNSF BPNSF-B BPNSF BPNSF-B BPNSF BPNSF-B BPNSF BPNSF-B BPNSF BPNSF-B
A S .714 .841 .674 .825 .805 .924 .813 .881 .954 .955
F .845 .853 .864 .934 .889 .933 .907 .881 .955 .931
C S .774 .925 .771 .895 .862 .944 .804 .971 .881 .937
F .838 .808 .881 .943 .864 .901 .867 .937 .932 .955
R S .836 .912 .916 .972 .915 .918 .918 .943 .985 .978
F .759 .817 .874 .956 .911 .810 .914 .941 .959 .959
Ann. BPNSF = Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration, BPNSF-B = Badge-Specific = Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and
Frustration, A = Autonomy, C = Competence, R = Relatedness, S = Satisfaction, F = Frustration.
6
Fig. 1. All achievable badges and meta-badges.
awarded the meta-badge “check-up master”.
2.5. Data analysis
Using SPSS Statistics (IBM Corp, 2020), we identified and excluded outliers pairwise when they displayed more than 1.5 times
interquartile range in boxplots and checked for assumptions. We calculated (badge-specific) autonomy satisfaction(-B), autonomy
frustration(-B), competence satisfaction(-B), competence frustration(-B), relatedness satisfaction(-B), and relatedness frustration(-B) as mean
values of the BPNSF (and BPNSF-B) scales (referring to Heissel et al., 2018) at all points of measurement. Only n = 27 participants
completed all questionnaires, n = 48 had filled in the pretest and at least one of the other surveys. Therefore, we computed a mean
value from the available data from all measurement points for each of the variables of BPN satisfaction/frustration variables and
refrained from describing and comparing participant motivation at each point of measurement, see Table 1 for reliabilities.
Independent-samples t-Tests showed no significant difference of prior knowledge between conditions and gender, p > .05, so we did not
include prior knowledge as a covariate into analyses. The remaining missing values were excluded pairwise. We then calculated
univariate two-way analyses of variance for the dependent variables (autonomy satisfaction and frustration, relatedness satisfaction and
frustration, and competence satisfaction and frustration with the factors condition (badge vs. control condition) and gender (male vs.
female).
In a second step, we exclusively considered the data of participants in the badge condition. We conducted repeated-measurement
analyses of variance with the between-subjects factor gender and the within-subjects factor focus, investigating the main and inter
action effects of focus and gender on autonomy, competence, and relatedness satisfaction/frustration. The within-subjects factor focus
had two levels: the respective general and badge-specific variable of the BPNSF and BPNSF-B scale. Regarding the qualitative data, we
listed all answers of badge users to the open questions. With a qualitative content analysis, we analyzed all answers according to
whether they could be summarized as “(rather) positive” (e.g., badges helped to keep an overview, were fun, should be worked with in
the future) or “(rather) negative” (e.g., were no fun, should not be worked with in the future) to explore badge perception in more
Table 2
Mean, standard deviation, and main and interaction effects of univariate analyses of variance with the factors condition and gender for BPN satis
faction and frustration.
Descriptive statistics main effects interaction
condition gender condition*gender
N M SD (df)F p ηp2 (df)F p ηp2 (df)F p ηp2

BPN AS 47 3.00 0.59 (1,43)0.385 n.s. .009 0.330 n.s. .008 0.081 n.s. .002
AF 49 2.91 0.82 (1,45)1.155 n.s. .025 0.537 n.s. .012 0.221 n.s. .005
CS 49 3.49 0.57 (1,45)0.053 n.s. .001 0.789 n.s. .017 0.730 n.s. .016
CF 49 2.12 0.70 (1,45)0.107 n.s. .002 1.159 n.s. .025 1.237 n.s. .027
RS 49 2.28 0.91 (1,45)0.012 n.s. <.001 3.040 n.s. .063 0.011 n.s. <.001
RF 49 1.53 0.67 (1,45)0.489 n.s. .011 0.009 n.s. <.001 0.732 n.s. .016
Ann. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation, BPN = Basic Psychological Needs, AS = Autonomy Satisfaction, AF = Autonomy Frustration, CS =
Competence Satisfaction, CF = Competence Frustration, RS = Relatedness Satisfaction, RF = Relatedness Frustration.
7
detail, using example answers and their frequency to better illustrate what kind of answers were given.
3. Results
The seminar was perceived as moderately motivating, see Table 2. Autonomy satisfaction and frustration were not significantly
different from the scale mean, competence satisfaction was significantly higher, t (56) = 6.166, p < .001, relatedness satisfaction, t
(56) = 5.718, p < .001, frustration, t (56) = 15.016, p < .001, and competence frustration, t (56) = 8.620, p < .001, were significantly
lower than the scale mean. Participants scored M = 8.24 (SD = 1.13) before and M = 9.24 (SD = 1.39) of the maximal 12 points (König
& Blömeke, 2010, p. 8) in the knowledge test after the seminar, a significant difference, t (24) = 3.162, p = .004, but not between the
groups, p > .05.
3.1. Overall BPN satisfaction and BPN frustration
The univariate two-way analyses of variance for autonomy, competence, and relatedness satisfaction and frustration, respectively,
displayed no main effects of condition or gender and no interactions between both, all p > .05. Participants in the badge condition were
not differently motivated than participants in the control condition. Women were not differently motivated than men, see Table 2.
3.2. Badge perception in detail
3.2.1. Motivation focusing on the seminar overall versus focusing on badges in particular
We compared BPN satisfaction/frustration of badge users when focusing on the seminar overall to their BPN satisfaction/frus
tration focusing on working with badges in particular (BPNSF vs. BPNSF-B). We report a main effect of focus (motivation for working
for the seminar overall versus working for the seminar with badges in particular) for all BPN satisfaction variables. All BPN satisfaction
levels were higher when focusing on the seminar overall than focusing on working with badges in particular. There was no main effect
of focus on BPN frustration. There were significant interaction effects between focus and gender regarding autonomy satisfaction and
competence satisfaction, see Table 3.
Male participants in the badge condition perceived significantly more autonomy satisfaction working for the seminar overall (M =
3.00, SD = 0.61) than working for the seminar with badges in particular (M = 2.04, SD = 0.85), a large effect (ηp2 > 0.14). There was no
difference in female badge users. Similarly, only male badge users’ competence satisfaction was significantly lower regarding working
with badges in particular (M = 2.31, SD = 1.00) compared to working for the seminar in general (M = 3.66, SD = 0.55), a large effect
(ηp2 > 0.278). Interaction effects are visualized in Fig. 2.
3.2.2. Badge users’ badge perception

Qualitative data clarified badge users’ perceptions of badges. As answering was optional, not all participants answered all
Table 3
Descriptive statistics and analyses of variance for all BPN satisfaction/frustration, and intrinsic motivation variables of participants of the badge
condition, respective outliers removed.
N descriptive MB(SD) main effect p η p2 interaction effect
statistics focus gender focus*gender
M(SD) (df)F p ηp2 F F p ηp2

BPN AS m 11 3.00 (0.61) 2.04 (0.85) (1,28)32.735 <.001 .539 n.s. 29.335 <.001 .512
f 19 2.94 (0.69) 2.91 (0.75)
all 30 2.96 (0.65) 2.59 (0.88)
AF m 11 3.20 (0.61) 3.09 (1.10) n.s. n.s. n.s.
f 20 2.89 (0.89) 2.82 (0.93)
all 31 3.00 (0.80) 2.92 (0.99)
RS m 11 1.98 (0.88) 1.57 (0.77) (1,29)9.286 .005 .243 n.s. n.s.
f 20 2.44 (1.00) 2.24 (1.05)
all 31 2.28 (0.97) 2.00 (1.00)
RF m 11 1.70 (0.82) 1.67 (0.93) n.s. n.s. n.s.
f 20 1.50 (0.57) 1.52 (0.71)
all 31 1.57 (0.67) 1.57 (0.78)
CS m 11 3.66 (0.55) 2.31 (1.00) (1,29)19.396 <.001 .401 n.s. 11.160 .002, .278
f 20 3.35 (0.59) 3.17 (0.96)
all 31 3.46 (0.59) 2.86 (1.05)
CF m 11 1.88 (0.65) 1.90 (1.03) n.s. n.s. n.s.
f 20 2.34 (0.80) 2.48 (0.97)
all 31 2.17 (0.77) 2.27 (1.01)
Ann. BPN = Basic Psychological Need. M = Mean, MB = Badge-Specific Mean, SD = standard deviation, df = degrees of freedom, n.s. = not significant.
AS = Autonomy Satisfaction, AF = Autonomy Frustration, CS = Competence Satisfaction, CF = Competence Frustration, RS = Relatedness Satis
faction, RF = Relatedness Frustration.
8
questions. 13 participants answered “no” or “rather no” when asked whether badges helped them keep an overview of the seminar
topics. Summarized, students stated that badges were too complicated, time-consuming, or not useful because the seminar was already
well-structured. 13 participants answered “yes” or “rather yes”, mentioning that badges visualized what they had already achieved,
what was still missing, and that badges were used as a checklist for tasks or as a reward. Regarding badge support for autonomy, 14
participants answered “no” or “rather no”, for example, indicating that the badges were irrelevant because they did not play a sig
nificant role in completing the seminar or that they would have done the tasks regardless. Seven participants answered “yes” or “rather
yes”, stating reasons like help for time management and structure. However, these answers refer to the BPN for competence rather than
autonomy. 14 participants stated that the badges had (rather) not made the seminar more fun. Reasons included a lack of significance,
technical problems, or badges causing more work and problems than benefits. Eleven participants indicated that badges had made the
seminar more fun, e.g., because they could “tick off” tasks, collecting things was fun, it “felt good” to get a reward, and working with
badges was “something different”. Students named a lack of relevance, technical problems, especially with the platform Mahara, and
the application process to get the badges as worst. They named fun, structure and overview, feelings of rewards, and the ability to see
what they already accomplished as the best parts of working with badges. Finally, when asked whether they preferred working with or
without badges, eleven participants indicated (rather) no and twelve (rather) yes. Those indicating (rather) no mentioned that the
badges were time-consuming and irrelevant, while those who indicated (rather) yes said badges were interesting, structuring, felt
good, or once that they were “hooked” on collecting badges because they knew this system from gaming in general. Offered the
possibility to say some more about badges, students mentioned facilitation of implementation into the learning platform, levels
(bronze, silver, gold), a public “badge board”, and optional badges (that not everyone can earn) as ideas to improve the badge system.
4. Discussion
This study investigated whether there were main and interaction effects of badge usage and gender regarding undergraduates’ BPN
satisfaction and frustration in an online class. Its primary contribution to research is the integration of need frustration for a better
understanding of ambivalent badge effects on motivation in digital learning. For a thorough description of how badges motivate
whom, this work investigated badge users’ perceptions and gender effects systematically. First, we compared the motivation of male
and female participants in a badge condition to those in a control condition. We did not find any significant differences regarding BPN
satisfaction or frustration and thus no support for Hypothesis 1.1 and 1.2. These findings corroborate research stating that badges have
less impact on motivation than commonly assumed (Kyewski & Krämer, 2018) but differ from others assuming either a positive or
negative effect of badges on the basic needs (e.g., Bräuer & Mazarakis, 2019; Sailer et al., 2017; van Roy & Zaman, 2019). Overall,
badges neither worked in a need-supportive nor in a need-thwarting way. Post knowledge also did not differ between the groups,
corroborating this finding (Ryan & Deci, 2017). The question remains why we found no impact of badges on BPN satisfaction or
frustration of male and female undergraduates. Various reasons are conceivable. Possibly, badge implementation has not worked in the
attempted way (see, e.g., Pitt et al., 2019). We used open badges for this study. They had value beyond the digital learning environment
itself, contained metadata, and could be integrated into students’ social media (Fanfarelli & McDaniel, 2019; Ifenthaler et al., 2016;
Mozilla Foundation, 2021). Therefore, the badges should have supported the BPNs, but students might not have recognized or valued
these aspects (e.g., the value and validity of badges, Davis & Singh, 2015), resulting in a lack of need support. Descriptive and
qualitative data reflect this interpretation. Descriptively, autonomy was moderately satisfied but also moderately frustrated. Perhaps
badge users did not fully understand the real-life value of badges. Understanding value is crucial for autonomous motivation (Ryan &
Deci, 2017, 2020), but no participant in the badge condition mentioned the possibility to use the badges as a demonstration of
competence in real life or integrate badges into social media at all, underpinning this line of thought. Thus, underlining the social
element (Haaranen et al., 2014) or real-life value (Ryan & Deci, 2017) of badges more strongly could have been beneficial. Qualitative
data supports this idea, as positive and negative badge perceptions were rather balanced and moderate. Some students stressed that
they would have preferred to know more about other students’ badges or even talked “offline” about their badge count with friends in
the same class. The social aspect of the badges might not have been experienced by the students, resulting in a lack of relatedness
Fig. 2. Significant interaction effects between focus and gender for overall and badge-specific (-B) autonomy satisfaction (AS) and competence
satisfaction (CS) levels among men and women in the badge condition. Error bars indicate standard deviations.
9
support. Some students further mentioned that they would have liked more badges, optional badges, temporary badges, or scaled
badges (bronze – silver – gold) to make them more attractive, surprising, and enjoyable, which might support the needs for autonomy
(interest, enjoyment) and competence (scaled badges). These findings corroborate those of Davis and Singh (2015), where it remained
unclear whether students felt the validity and value of the badges and of sharing them with others, and of Pitt et al. (2019), who named
sociotechnical (including awareness of the badge system), sociocultural (including perceived value of the badges), and technical issues
as typical challenges in badge implementation, supporting our interpretation. Another explanation could be that game elements unfold
their full potential in synergy with other game elements (see, e.g., Sailer et al., 2017) and not as a single game element in an otherwise
non-gamified digital learning context.
Second, we focused on participants in the badge condition only and compared their BPN levels focusing on working for the seminar
overall to their BPN levels focusing on working for the seminar with badges in particular. Participants in the badge condition perceived
working for the seminar with badges in particular as less need-satisfying than working for the seminar in general. However, we found no
difference in BPN frustration. Interactions between gender and focus detail these results: Only male badge users displayed less au
tonomy and competence satisfaction when focusing on badge usage. In other words, male badge users might have preferred working in
the same learning environment without badges, reflecting the qualitative data and corroborating prior research (Gómez-Carrasco
et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2017). The findings partially support Hypotheses 2.1 and 2.2, implying a slightly negative badge impact on
male need-satisfaction but not on need frustration in the badge condition. Qualitative data suggests that technical problems during
badge implementation might have been perceived as demotivating, difficult, or extra work, corroborating prior research stating that
simplified user experiences are crucial. For example, technical problems entailed negative consequences for both boys and girls, but
ease of use might be valued differently by the genders (Admiraal et al., 2014; Koivisto & Hamari, 2014; Krath et al., 2021). The gender
differences might exist because of a gendered preference for competitive game elements, social benefits, or social interaction (e.g., Tsay
et al., 2018). Our study implies that men do not appreciate working with game elements that do not incorporate a competitive aspect
(Hartmann & Klimmt, 2006; Pirker et al., 2014; Ruipérez-Valiente et al., 2016).
To sum up, we report complex findings, confirming the research question of whether digital badges affect BPN satisfaction and BPN
frustration of males and females in higher education in distinct ways. The following results are striking: First, there were no overall
BPN level differences between the badge and the control condition and the genders. Second, male badge users felt less need-satisfied
working with badges than working for the seminar in general. Third, although male badge users indicated motivational disadvantages
through badge usage through lower autonomy and competence satisfaction levels compared to their overall motivation for the
seminar, their BPNs were still not frustrated. Accordingly, the main finding regarding the research question of this study is that badges
did not frustrate the BPNs, neither when comparing the badge condition to the control condition nor comparing female to male badge
users, while distinct effects were found for BPN satisfaction. On the one hand, the lack of perceived BPN satisfaction shows that the
intended BPN support through badge usage did not work as intended, especially in male badge users, which highlights the importance
of badge design and implementation (e.g., Biles et al., 2018; Bell & Davis, 2016). On the other hand, the lack of BPN frustration is a
positive sign. Badge usage, although it was not particularly need-supportive, did not actively harm the BPNs. This is crucial because a
lack of need support does not equal the emergence of need frustration, which entails its very own negative consequences (Ryan & Deci,
2017; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013).
Thus, our findings extend those of van Roy and Zaman (2019): We also report complex effects, but we add that even when badge
implementation is not supportive of the BPNs, it does not necessarily increase BPN frustration. In this sample, especially men displayed
a lack of perceived autonomy and competence support through badge usage. Thereby, we build on prior research on need frustration
(e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2020; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013) and badge impact on need satisfaction (e.g., Sailer et al., 2017) in the context of
badge usage in higher education. Results show that badge impact on both need satisfaction and frustration needs more attention to
better understand the mechanisms behind motivation through badge usage to make the best of gamification for both female and male
students in higher education.
4.1. Theoretical and practical implications
The most important implication of this study is that researchers and practitioners should consider both BPN satisfaction and
frustration when investigating and using badges. When badges have complex, diverse, and distinct effects on BPN satisfaction and
frustration, their usage entails differences in motivational quality (i.e., intrinsic motivation and other types of behavior regulation)
and, therefore, performance (Fanfarelli & McDaniel, 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2017).
It might be helpful to provide a gamified and a non-gamified version of a seminar, based on student preferences, or to leave students
the option to turn gamification elements on or off. Those who reported badges as less need-supportive in our sample might profit more
from a non-gamified study environment, while others could profit from collecting badges. Providing gamified and non-gamified
learning environments would help personalize learning (Randall et al., 2013).
Our findings further display that gamification should be used with a thorough concept, including an adequate learning platform (e.
g., Dicheva et al., 2018) that minimizes technical issues and instruction of the students to understand the badges’ value and relevance
(Pitt et al., 2019). Gamifying formal education requires resources (e.g., timely, financial, cognitive). Accordingly, null effects of
gamification on motivation mean that gamification binds those resources without adding new value to the learning process, which
should be avoided. Although this research corroborates studies noting that badges are not under all circumstances need-supportive or
have less impact than commonly assumed (Koivisto & Hamari, 2014), we believe that they are a useful pedagogical tool for motivation
in higher education – if implemented effectively (e.g., Pitt et al., 2019). Practitioners should develop gamification literacy (Krath et al.,
2021) in the best possible way. They should not use badges precipitately but instead be equipped with adequate skills to choose and use
10
which badges how, when, and for whom. We suggest that practitioners focus on simplifying learner experiences to support the need for
competence, conveying the value of badges to support the need for autonomy, and emphasizing the social aspects of badges to support
the need for relatedness (e.g., Rigby & Ryan, 2011).
Because of the interactions of gender and focus (badge motivation vs. seminar motivation), with male badge users perceiving badges
as less motivating than females, practitioners should take gender into account when designing online education with badges. In
combination with our finding that badges did not harm motivation by frustrating the BPNs, badges appear as an additional option to
motivate at least some students in digital learning environments (Delello et al., 2018; Elkordy, 2016). Our data suggests that the
perceived ease of usage and self-efficacy could explain the gender differences to the disadvantage of male badge users. Therefore, it
could be helpful to combine SDT with other models or theories (Krath et al., 2021), for example, the Technology Acceptance Model
(Davis, 1989) or Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 2001).
In line with prior research (e.g., Bräuer & Mazarakis, 2019), our findings imply that gamification might work best when different
game elements are combined so that synergies can unfold (Bai et al., 2020; Sailer et al., 2017). Thus, practitioners could offer various
game elements in digital learning environments, such as the PBL-triad of points, badges, and leaderboards (e.g., Sailer et al., 2017;
Werbach & Hunter, 2012) to magnify the positive and minimize the possible negative consequence of badge usage.
4.2. Limitations and future research
Our data adds to the vital discussion about badge effects on motivation but cannot conclusively solve the problem of how to
implement badges in the best possible way. It should be considered that this study was conducted with a sample of students with a
specific profile, i.e., students of a Bachelor of Education program in Educational Sciences. It can be assumed that their motivation to
participate in the seminar was generally high, and it is possible that they already had some prior (implicit) knowledge and opinions
about motivation and motivation theories (Schürmann et al., 2021). Maybe students’ perception of the badges and the effect of the
badges were to some extent correlated, which has been reported in other contexts (e.g., Ortega-Arranz et al., 2019).
Regarding effect size and sample size (Cohen, 1992 in Field, 2013), more participants would have been needed to detect medium or
small effects as significant in the present research design (Faul et al., 2007). We did not find any main or interaction effects of the
condition (badges versus no badges) or gender comparing badge users to a control group, but we found male badge users to perceive
working with badges as less need-satisfying than working for the seminar overall. This could be due to the technical problems and
sub-optimal implementation of badges in the learning platform that some badge users mentioned in the qualitative data. Future
research should analyze challenges in badge implementation from the student perspective in more detail (see, e.g., Bell & Davis, 2016;
Davis & Klein, 2015), perhaps using qualitative data more extensively to clarify the reasons why and how badges may or may not work
in a given context.
The short-term implementation of badges in only one seminar for 8 weeks could have faced specific effects, e.g., novelty effects (e.
g., Koivisto & Hamari, 2014). A longer-term implementation of badges could shed light on how to overcome such effects (e.g., Tsay
et al., 2020). Moreover, it could unlock positive badge effects that cannot unfold in the short term, e.g., a more holistic picture of the
development of a student over time, displaying social engagement over various semesters or a specific interest in topics in an inter
disciplinary way, which contains more information than a regular transcript of records (e.g., Becker & Nicholson, 2016; Peck et al.,
2016). Consequently, educators should also try to implement badges in the long-term school or university context to use the badges’
full potential. Moreover, research utilizing a badge design emphasizing badge value (need for autonomy), social badge aspects (need
for relatedness), and ease of use and technical flawlessness (need for competence, e.g., Ryan & Rigby, 2011) could produce significant
main effects of condition. In combination with theory, our results imply gendered preferences for the ease of use, flawlessness of
technological integration, and social and competitive badge aspects. Future research could examine these options in more detail. The
same counts for a combination of game elements (e.g., Sailer et al., 2017), which was not realized in the present study. Finally,
person-centered approaches could help address badge impact on BPN satisfaction and frustration (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Our study
aimed at finding distinct influences of badge usage on the respective unique levels of BPN satisfaction and frustration in male and
female students. Investigating the BPNs from a person-centered perspective, i.e., in combination as they occur naturally, could be a
fruitful approach for future research (Ryan & Deci, 2020).
5. Conclusions
This study answers the research question of whether digital badges have distinct effects on need satisfaction and frustration of
females and males in higher education with ‘yes’ and includes gender as a possible influence. We found no badge impact on need
satisfaction or frustration but distinct gender differences in badge perception among male badge users. Badges had a negative influence
only on male badge users’ need satisfaction levels but not on their need frustration. They felt less need-satisfied working with badges in
particular than working for the seminar overall. Qualitative data suggests that participants could have benefited from a better under
standing of the real-life value of the badges, their social aspects, and an easier usage and implementation of the badges into the digital
learning platform to support their needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence, respectively (Rigby & Ryan, 2011; Ryan & Deci,
2017). Gender differences among badge users to the disadvantage of males might have occurred when males prefer competitive game
elements or stress the real-life value of badges and their ease of use more than females. This manuscript is one of the first to consider not
only need satisfaction but also need frustration in the context of badge impact on motivation in higher education. Compared to the
limited literature on badge impact on the BPNs in higher education (e.g., Sailer et al., 2017), and need frustration in particular (e.g.,
van Roy & Zaman, 2019), we extend prior research through an experimental design and quantitative data to better understand the
11
inconclusive findings regarding badge impact on motivation in combination with gender to date. Badges do not seem to frustrate the
basic needs to the same extent they do or do not satisfy them, so the assumption about the asymmetrical relation between BPN
satisfaction and frustration (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013) holds true in this context, as well. Further, the complex effects on badge user
motivation prove that research will profit from paying attention to badge impact on both need satisfaction and frustration. Finally,
gender influences on badge perception should also be considered to enable the most beneficial integration of badges in higher
education.
Credit author statement
Linda Schürmann: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. Claudia Quaiser-Pohl: Conceptualization, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgments
Project MoSAiK (Modulare Schulpraxiseinbindung als Ausgangspunkt zur individuellen Kompetenzentwicklung) 2.0 - support code
01JA1905 - is funded by the German Ministry for Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung).
References
Abramovich, S. (2016). Understanding digital badges in higher education through assessment. On the Horizon, 24(1), 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-08-
2015-0044
Abramovich, S., Schunn, C., & Higashi, R. M. (2013). Are badges useful in education?: It depends upon the type of badge and expertise of learner. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 61(2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9289-2
Abramovich, S., & Wardrip, P. (2016). Impact of badges on motivation to learn. In L. Y. Muilenburg, & Z. L. Berge (Eds.), Digital badges in education: Trends, issues, and
cases (pp. 53–61). Routledge.
Accredible. (2021). Open badge designer. Accredible. https://badge.design/.
Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J., Heemskerk, I., Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Dam, G. ten (2014). Gender-inclusive game-based learning in secondary education. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(11), 1208–1218. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.885592
Adukaite, A., van Zyl, I., Er, Ş., & Cantoni, L. (2017). Teacher perceptions on the use of digital gamified learning in tourism education: The case of South African
secondary schools. Computers & Education, 111, 172–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.008
Aguilera-Hermida, A. P. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research
Open, 1, 100011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011
Alexander, J. H., & Neill, S. (2018). The psychosocial impact of NHS Digital Badges on a school-aged cohort. Journal of Child Health Care: For Professionals Working with
Children in the Hospital and Community, 22(4), 619–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367493518767777
Alt, D. (2021). Who benefits from digital badges? Motivational precursors of digital badge usages in higher education. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12144-021-02002-0
Andrade, F. R. H., Mizoguchi, R., & Isotani, S. (2016). The bright and dark sides of gamification. In A. Micarelli, J. Stamper, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring
systems (pp. 176–186). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39583-8_17.
Antin, J., & Churchill, E. F. (2011). Badges in social media: A social psychological perspective. CHI 2011 (Vancouver, BC, Canada).
Bai, S., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B. (2020). Does gamification improve student learning outcome? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in
educational contexts. Educational Research Review, 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Mouratidis, A., Katartzi, E., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., & Vlachopoulos, S. (2018). Beware of your teaching style: A school-year long
investigation of controlling teaching and student motivational experiences. Learning and Instruction, 53, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2017.07.006
Başal, A., & Kaynak, N. E. (2019). Perceptions of pre-service English teachers towards the use of digital badges. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 57(2),
148–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1649172
Becker, K., & Nicholson, S. (2016). Gamification in the classroom: Old wine in new badges. In Bringing games into education (Vol. 2, pp. 61–86). ETC Press.
Bell, A., & Davis, K. (2016). Learning through participatory design: Designing digital badges for and with teens. In Proceedings of the the 15th international conference on
interaction design and children (pp. 218–229). https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930705
Berge, Z. L., & Muilenburg, L. Y. (2016). In the eye of the beholder: Value of digital badges. In L. Y. Muilenburg, & Z. L. Berge (Eds.), Digital badges in education: Trends,
issues, and cases (pp. 103–108). Routledge.
Biles, M. L., & Plass, J. L. (2016). Good badges, evil badges? Impact of badge design on learning from games. In L. Y. Muilenburg, & Z. L. Berge (Eds.), Digital badges in
education: Trends, issues, and cases (pp. 39–52). Routledge.
Boticki, I., Baksa, J., Seow, P., & Looi, C.-K. (2015). Usage of a mobile social learning platform with virtual badges in a primary school. Computers & Education, 86,
120–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.015
Bowen, K., & Thomas, A. (2014). Badges: A common currency for learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00091383.2014.867206
Bräuer, P., & Mazarakis, A. (2019). Badges or a leaderboard? How to gamify an augmented reality warehouse setting. In GamiFIN conference 2019 (pp. 228–240). Levi,
Finland, April 8-10, 2019.
Buckley, P., Doyle, E., & Doyle, S. (2017). Game on! Students’ perceptions of gamified learning. Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 1–10.
Cai, Z., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2017). Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 105, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2016.11.003
Cheema, S. E., & Velez, J. A. (2021). Internalizing external goals: The relationship between causality orientations and digital badges. Journal of Media Psychology:
Theories, Methods, and Applications, 33(2), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000285
Cheng, Z., Watson, S. L., & Newby, T. J. (2018). Goal setting and open digital badges in higher education. TechTrends, 62(2), 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11528-018-0249-x
12
Chung, E., Subramaniam, G., & Dass, L. C. (2020). Online learning readiness among university students in Malaysia amidst COVID-19. Asian Journal of University
Education, 16(2), 46–58.
Codish, D., & Ravid, G. (2017). Gender motivation in gamification: Does one size fit all?. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system Sciences,
2006–2015. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.244
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 13(3),
319–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, K., & Klein, E. (2015). Investigating high school students’ perceptions of digital badges in afterschool learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference
on human factors in computing systems (pp. 4043–4046). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702413
Davis, K., & Singh, S. (2015). Digital badges in afterschool learning: Documenting the perspectives and experiences of students and educators. Computers & Education,
88, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.011
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71
(1), 1–27, 10.3102%2F00346543071001001.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Delello, J. A., Hawley, H., McWhorter, R. R., Gipson, C. S., & Deal, B. (2018). Gamifying education: Motivation and the implementation of digital badges for use in
higher education. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 13(4), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJWLTT.2018100102
Denden, M., Tlili, A., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M., Chen, N.-S., & Burgos, D. (2021). Effects of gender and personality differences on students’ perception of game design
elements in educational gamification. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 154, 102674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102674
Deterding, S. (2011). Situated motivational affordances of game elements: A conceptual model. In CHI 2011 workshop “gamification.”. http://gamification-research.
org/chi2011/papers.
Devedžić, V., & Jovanović, J. (2015). Developing open badges: A comprehensive approach. Educational Technology Research & Development, 63(4), 603–620. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9388-3
Dicheva, D., Caldwell, R., & Guy, B. (2020). Do badges increase student engagement and motivation?. In Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on information
technology education (pp. 81–86). https://doi.org/10.1145/3368308.3415393
Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88.
Dicheva, D., Irwin, K., & Dichev, C. (2018). OneUp: Supporting practical and experimental gamification of learning. International Journal of Serious Games, 5(3), 5–21.
https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v5i3.236
Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: What is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: A critical review. International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5
Ding, L., Er, E., & Orey, M. (2018). An exploratory study of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 120, 213–226. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.007
D’Lima, G. M., Winsler, A., & Kitsantas, A. (2014). Ethnic and gender differences in first-year college students’ goal orientation, self-efficacy, and extrinsic and
intrinsic Motivation. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(5), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.823366
Dowling-Hetherington, L., & Glowatz, M. (2017). The usefulness of digital badges in higher education: Exploring the students’ perspectives. Irish Journal of Academic
Practice, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.21427/D7Z13C
Elkordy, A. (2016). Development and implementation of digital badges for learning science, technology, engineering and math (stem) practices in secondary contexts:
A pedagogical approach with empirical evidence. In D. Ifenthaler, N. Bellin-Mularski, & D. K. Mah (Eds.), Foundation of digital badges and micro-credentials:
Demonstrating and recognizing knowledge and competencies (pp. 483–508). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15425-1_1.
Facey-Shaw, L., Specht, M., van Rosmalen, P., & Bartley-Bryan, J. (2020). Do badges affect intrinsic motivation in introductory programming students? Simulation &
Gaming, 51(1), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878119884996
Fanfarelli, J. R., & McDaniel, R. (2017). Exploring digital badges in university courses: Relationships between quantity, engagement, and performance. Online
Learning, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i2.1007
Fanfarelli, J. R., & McDaniel, R. (2019). Designing effective digital badges. Routledge.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.
Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Sage.
Finkelstein, J., Knight, E., & Maning, S. (2013). The potential and value of using digital badges for adult learners—final report (Vol. 16). American Institutes for Research.
https://www.shrm.org/about-shrm/news-about-shrm/Documents/AIR_Digital_Badge_Report_508.pdf.
Gamrat, C., Zimmerman, H. T., Dudek, J., & Peck, K. (2014). Personalized workplace learning: An exploratory study on digital badging within a teacher professional
development program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(6), 1136–1148. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12200
Gibson, D., Ostashewski, N., Flintoff, K., Grant, S., & Knight, E. (2015). Digital badges in education. Education and Information Technologies, 20(2), 403–410. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9291-7
Gnambs, T., & Hanfstingl, B. (2016). The decline of academic motivation during adolescence: An accelerated longitudinal cohort analysis on the effect of
psychological need satisfaction. Educational Psychology, 36(9), 1691–1705. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1113236
Gómez-Carrasco, C. J., Monteagudo-Fernández, J., Moreno-Vera, J. R., & Sainz-Gómez, M. (2020). Evaluation of a gamification and flipped-classroom program used in
teacher training: Perception of learning and outcome. PLoS One, 15(7), Article e0236083. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236083
González-Gómez, F., Guardiola, J., Martín Rodríguez, Ó., & Montero Alonso, M.Á. (2012). Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 58(1),
283–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.017
Groening, C., & Binnewies, C. (2019). “Achievement unlocked!”—the impact of digital achievements as a gamification element on motivation and performance.
Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.026
Haaranen, L., Ihantola, P., Hakulinen, L., & Korhonen, A. (2014). How (not) to introduce badges to online exercises. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium
on computer science education (pp. 33–38). https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538921
Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical
education students’ motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 16(Part 3), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013
Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A. (2015). The effect of achievement badges on students’ behavior: An empirical study in a University-level computer science
course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 10(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v10i1.4221
Hanham, J., Lee, C. B., & Teo, T. (2021). The influence of technology acceptance, academic self-efficacy, and gender on academic achievement through online
tutoring. Computers & Education, 172, 104252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104252
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction,
effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019
Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C. (2006). Gender and computer games: Exploring females’ dislikes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 910–931. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00301.x
Heinert, S. W., Quasim, N., Ollmann, E., Socarras, M., & Suarez, N. (2020). Engaging youth through digital badges to promote health in underserved communities. In
Health promotion practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839920934798, 1524839920934798.
Heissel, A., Pietrek, A., Flunger, B., Fydrich, T., Rapp, M. A., Heinzel, S., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2018). The validation of the German basic psychological need
satisfaction and frustration scale in the context of mental health. European Journal of Health Psychology. https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/abs/10.1027/2512-
8442/a000017.
13
Hense, J., & Mandl, H. (2012). Learning in or with games? Quality criteria for digital learning games from the perspectives of learning, emotion, and motivation
theory. In D. G. Sampson, J. M. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, & P. Isaias (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS international conference on cognition and exploratory learning in the
digital age (pp. 19–26).
Hickey, D. T., & Schenke, K. (2019). Open digital badges and reward structures. In K. A. Renninger, & S. E. Hidi (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of motivation and
learning (pp. 209–237). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823279.011.
Homer, R., Hew, K. F., & Cheng, Y. T. (2018). Comparing digital badges-and-points with classroom token systems: Effects on elementary school ESL students’
classroom behavior and English learning. Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 137–151.
Howard, J. L., Bureau, J., Guay, F., Chong, J. X. Y., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination
theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1745691620966789. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789
Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., & Bureau, J. S. (2017). Testing a continuum structure of self-determined motivation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143(12),
1346–1377. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000125
IBM Corp. (2020). IBM SPSS statistics for macintosh. IBM Corp. Version 27.0.
Ifenthaler, D., Bellin-Mularski, N., & Mah, D. K. (2016). Foundation of digital badges and micro-credentials. Springer Science+Business Media.
IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2021). What are open badges. Open badges. https://openbadges.org/.
Jagušt, T., Botički, I., & So, H.-J. (2018). Examining competitive, collaborative and adaptive gamification in young learners’ math learning. Computers & Education,
125, 444–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.022
Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model.
Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002
Jovanovic, J., & Devedzic, V. (2015). Open badges: Novel means to motivate, scaffold and recognize learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(1), 115–122.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9232-6
Jurgelaitis, M., Čeponienė, L., Čeponis, J., & Drungilas, V. (2019). Implementing gamification in a university-level UML modeling course: A case study. Computer
Applications in Engineering Education, 27(2), 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22077
Khan, A., Ahmad, F. H., & Malik, M. M. (2017). Use of digital game-based learning and gamification in secondary school science: The effect on student engagement,
learning and gender difference. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 2767–2804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9622-1
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179–188. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.007
König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2010). Pädagogisches Unterrichtswissen (PUW): Dokumentation der Kurzfassung des TEDS-M Testinstruments zur Kompetenzmessung in der ersten
Phase der Lehrerausbildung. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Krath, J., Schürmann, L., & von Korflesch, H. F. O. (2021). Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: a systematic review and analysis of theory in research on
gamification and serious games. Computers in Human Behavior, 125, Article 106963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963.
Kumar, J. (2013). Gamification at work: Designing engaging business software. In A. Marcus (Ed.), Design, user experience, and usability. Health, learning, playing,
cultural, and cross-cultural user experience (pp. 528–537). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39241-2_58.
Kyewski, E., & Krämer, N. C. (2018). To gamify or not to gamify? An experimental field study of the influence of badges on motivation, activity, and performance in an
online learning course. Computers & Education, 118(November 2017), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.006
Li, N., & Kirkup, G. (2007). Gender and cultural differences in internet use: A study of China and the UK. Computers & Education, 48(2), 301–317. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.007
Mah, D. K. (2016). Learning analytics and digital badges: Potential impact on student retention in higher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(3),
285–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-016-9286-8
Mahara. (2021). Mahara ePortfolio system. https://mahara.org/.
McDaniel, R., Lindgren, R., & Friskics, J. (2012). Using badges for shaping interactions in online learning environments. In 2012 IEEE international professional
communication conference (pp. 1–4). https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2012.6408619
McGovern, T. M. (2019). Academic digital badges: Industry, employment, and prospects (order No. 27548105). Publicly Available Content Database. (2331266644)
https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/academic-digital-badges-industry-employment/docview/2331266644/se-2?accountid=14490.
Mozilla Foundation. (2021). Badges—MozillaWiki. http://wiki.mozilla.org/Badges.
Noyes, J. A., Welch, P. M., Johnson, J. W., & Carbonneau, K. J. (2020). A systematic review of digital badges in health care education. Medical Education, 54(7),
600–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14060
OECD. (2021). OECD digital education outlook 2021: Pushing the frontiers with artificial intelligence, blockchain and robots. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/
589b283f-en
Open Badge Factory Ltd. (2018). Open badge Passport. https://openbadgepassport.com.
Open Badge Factory Ltd. (2021). Open badge factory. https://openbadgefactory.com/.
Ortega-Arranz, A., Er, E., Martínez-Monés, A., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., & Muñoz-Cristóbal, J. A. (2019). Understanding student behavior and
perceptions toward earning badges in a gamified MOOC. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(3), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-019-00677-
8
Panagiotarou, A., Stamatiou, Y. C., Pierrakeas, C. J., & Kameas, A. (2020). Gamification acceptance for learners with different e-skills. International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research, 19(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.2.16
Peck, K., Bowen, K., Rimland, E., & Oberdick, J. (2016). Badging as micro-credentials in formal education and informal education. In Z. L. Berge, & L. Y. Muilenburg
(Eds.), Digital badges in education: Trends, issues, and cases (pp. 39–52). Routledge.
Pedro, L. Z., Lopes, A. M. Z., Prates, B. G., Vassileva, J., & Isotani, S. (2015). Does gamification work for boys and girls? An exploratory study with a virtual learning
environment. In Proceedings of the 30th annual ACM symposium on applied computing (pp. 214–219). https://doi.org/10.1145/2695664.2695752
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4),
667–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Pirker, J., Riffnaller-Schiefer, M., & Gütl, C. (2014). Motivational active learning: Engaging university students in computer science education. In Proceedings of the
2014 conference on innovation & technology in computer science education (pp. 297–302). https://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591750
Pitt, C., Bell, A., Onofre, E., & Davis, K. (2019). A badge, not a barrier: Designing for-and throughout-digital badge implementation. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI
conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–14). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300920
Pursel, B. K., Stubbs, C., Choi, G. W., & Tietjen, P. (2016). Digital badges, learning at scale, and big data. In L. Y. Muilenburg, & Z. L. Berge (Eds.), Digital badges in
education: Trends, issues, and cases (pp. 39–52). Routledge.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106392
Randall, D. L., Harrison, J. B., & West, R. E. (2013). Giving credit where credit is due: Designing open badges for a technology integration course. TechTrends, 57(6),
88–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0706-5
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist,
44(3), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990
Reid, A. J., Paster, D., & Abramovich, S. (2015). Digital badges in undergraduate composition courses: Effects on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Computers in
Education, 2(4), 377–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0042-1
Rigby, S., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). Glued to games: How video games draw us in and hold us spellbound. ABC-CLIO.
Rodgers, W. M., Markland, D., Selzler, A.-M., Murray, T. C., & Wilson, P. M. (2014). Distinguishing perceived competence and self-efficacy: An example from exercise.
Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 85(4), 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2014.961050
14
Rodríguez-Ardura, I., & Meseguer-Artola, A. (2021). Flow experiences in personalised e-learning environments and the role of gender and academic performance.
Interactive Learning Environments, 29(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1572628
Roy, S., & Clark, D. (2019). Digital badges, do they live up to the hype? British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2619–2636. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjet.12709
van Roy, R., Deterding, S., & Zaman, B. (2019). Collecting pokémon or receiving rewards? How people functionalise badges in gamified online learning environments
in the wild. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 127, 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.09.003
van Roy, R., & Zaman, B. (2018). Need-supporting gamification in education: An assessment of motivational effects over time. Computers & Education, 127, 283–297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.018
van Roy, R., & Zaman, B. (2019). Unravelling the ambivalent motivational power of gamification: A basic psychological needs perspective. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 127, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.04.009
Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., & Kloos, C. D. (2016). Analyzing students’ intentionality towards badges within a case study using Khan academy. In
Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 536–537). https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883947
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55
(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & 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
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-
09498-w
Schürmann, L., Gaschler, R., & Quaiser-Pohl, C. (2021). Motivation theory in the school context: differences in preservice and practicing teachers’ experience, opinion,
and knowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36, 739–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00496-z.
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhcs.2014.09.006
Shields, R., & Chugh, R. (2017). Digital badges – rewards for learning? Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1817–1824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-
016-9521-x
P. de M. Smiderle, R., Rigo, S. J., Marques, L. B., Coelho, J. A., & Jaques, P. A. (2020). The impact of gamification on students’ learning, engagement and behavior
based on their personality traits Smart Learning Environments, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0098-x. undefined-undefined
de Sousa Borges, S., Durelli, V. H. S., Reis, H. M., & Isotani, S. (2014). A systematic mapping on gamification applied to education. In Proceedings of the 29th annual
ACM symposium on applied computing (pp. 216–222). https://doi.org/10.1145/2554850.2554956
Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G. A., Schattke, K., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., & Koestner, R. (2014). A self-determination theory approach to predicting school
achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(4), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2014.08.002
Toda, A. M., Oliveira, W., Shi, L., Bittencourt, I. I., Isotani, S., & Cristea, A. (2019). Planning gamification strategies based on user characteristics and DM: A gender-
based case study. In Proceedings of the international Conference on educational data mining. 12th international conference on educational data mining. Montréal http://
arxiv.org/abs/1905.09146.
Toda, A. M., Valle, P. H. D., & Isotani, S. (2018). The dark side of gamification: An overview of negative effects of gamification in education. In A. I. Cristea,
I. I. Bittencourt, & F. Lima (Eds.), Higher education for all. From challenges to novel technology-enhanced solutions (pp. 143–156). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97934-2_9.
Tsay, C. H.-H., Kofinas, A., & Luo, J. (2018). Enhancing student learning experience with technology-mediated gamification: An empirical study. Computers &
Education, 121, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.009
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle.
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion,
44(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1
Warburton, V. E., Wang, J. C. K., Bartholomew, K. J., Tuff, R. L., & Bishop, K. C. M. (2020). Need satisfaction and need frustration as distinct and potentially co-
occurring constructs: Need profiles examined in physical education and sport. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09798-
2
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital Press.
West, R. E., & Randall, D. L. (2016). The case of rigor in open badges. In L. Y. Muilenburg, & Z. L. Berge (Eds.), Digital badges in education: Trends, issues, and cases (pp.
21–29). Routledge.
Wilde, M., Bätz, K., Kovaleva, A., & Urhahne, D. (2009). Überprüfung einer Kurzskala intrinsischer Motivation (KIM). (Test of a short scale for intrinsic motivation).
Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 15, 31–45.
Yang, J. C., Quadir, B., & Chen, N.-S. (2016). Effects of the badge mechanism on self-efficacy and learning performance in a game-based English learning environment.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(3), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115620433
Zainuddin, Z. (2018). Students’ learning performance and perceived motivation in gamified flipped-class instruction. Computers & Education, 126, 75–88. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.003
Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence.
Educational Research Review, 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326
Zainuddin, Z., Shujahat, M., Chu, S. K. W., Haruna, H., & Farida, R. (2019). The effects of gamified flipped instruction on learner performance and need satisfaction: A
study in a low-tech setting. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(11/12), 789–802. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-07-2019-0067
15

1 s2.0 S0360131522000550 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0360131522000550 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computers & Education 182 (2022) 104484

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

Digital badges affect need satisfaction but not frustration in males

* Corresponding author. Institute of Psychology, Universitätsstraße 1, 56070, Koblenz, Germany.

1.1. Digital badges and motivation in education

1.2. Digital badges, need satisfaction, and need frustration

1.3. Gender, digital badges, and basic needs

1.4. Questions and hypotheses

2. Methods and material

2.3.1. Basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration

2.3.2. Badge perception

2.3.3. Pedagogical lesson knowledge

Fig. 1. All achievable badges and meta-badges.

awarded the meta-badge “check-up master”.

2.5. Data analysis

condition gender condition*gender

N M SD (df)F p ηp2 (df)F p ηp2 (df)F p ηp2

3.1. Overall BPN satisfaction and BPN frustration

3.2. Badge perception in detail

3.2.2. Badge users’ badge perception

statistics focus gender focus*gender

M(SD) (df)F p ηp2 F F p ηp2

4.1. Theoretical and practical implications

4.2. Limitations and future research

Credit author statement

Declaration of competing interest

You might also like