Tax knowledge rose over a forecasting game; there was no other group to compare
No comparisonThe short version
Students' tax knowledge rose over three weeks of a game where they bet pretend money on budget changes.

- 81
- university students on a tax module
- One group
- no comparison group
- Self-rated
- people rated themselves
- 3 tools
- used
The study
Who took part
81 university students on a tax module in Ireland, all of whom filled in surveys at the start and the end. Only students with matching answers at both times were counted.
What they did
Students used a website to place pretend money on answers to 14 questions about the 2014 national budget. The game ran for three weeks and counted for a tenth of their module grade.
What happened
Average score out of 10 rose from about 0.8 at the start to about 1.9 at the end. Students who enjoyed learning for its own sake, or liked the thrill, tended to trade on more days. The paper's numbers don't quite add up, so we can't give exact sizes.
What the study found
- No comparison
Students' tax knowledge rose over three weeks of a game where they bet pretend money on budget changes.
- Rule: Get feedback on your progressused
- Rule: Compete or compare with othersused
- Rule: Get a reward or payment for doing itused
Small study of one group of 81 university students on a tax module · no comparison group · they rated themselves · ⚠ only counted people who finished; numbers unreliable; summary claims more than the results show
- No comparison
Students who enjoyed learning for its own sake, or liked the thrill, tended to trade on more days.
Small study of one group of 81 university students on a tax module · no comparison group · they rated themselves · ⚠ only counted people who finished; numbers unreliable; summary claims more than the results show
How solid is this?
- Small group
- No comparison group
- People rated themselves
- Only counted people who finished
- Numbers unreliable
- Summary claims more than the results show
Source
Gamification and student motivation (2016)
DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2014.964263 (opens in a new tab)

