Claims

On a relative leaderboard, intrinsic motivation is equal across top, middle, and bottom ranked students

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · no dated study recorded · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Top-, middle-, and bottom-ranked learners on a relative leaderboard demonstrated an equal level of intrinsic motivation at all three measurement stages, supporting H1b. → Bai 2021

Evidence

Bai 2021

Bai, Shurui, Khe Foon Hew, Michael Sailer, and Chengyuan Jia. 2021. "From top to bottom: how positions on different types of leaderboard may affect fully online student learning performance, intrinsic motivation, and course engagement." Computers & Education 173: 104297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104297.

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Quasi-experiment with 26 postgraduate students in a fully online course using a relative leaderboard showing five neighbours; IMI interest/enjoyment measured at pre-intervention, mid-term, and post-intervention. No significant variations were found among the three position levels at any stage.

"we found no significant variations among the students at the three position levels throughout the intervention (pre-intervention: H = 2.86, p = .24; mid-term: F = 0.81, p = .46; post-intervention: F = 0.53, p = .59."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-29
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.