Leaderboards in an EFL course: Student performance and motivation

• Published in: Computers and education 2022-12, Vol.190, p.104605, Article 104605
• Main Authors: Philpott, Andrew, Son, Jeong-Bae
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: EFL; Extrinsic motivation; Gamification; Intrinsic motivation; Leaderboard
• ISSN: 0360-1315; 1873-782X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104605

The study reported in this article investigated the use of leaderboards in an English as a foreign language (EFL) course at a Japanese university. The study used self-determination theory as the theoretical foundation to explore how leaderboards affect student performance (i.e., amount of work completed) and foreign language (FL) motivation. It was conducted over a 14-week period with two intact classes of participants; while both classes (i.e., Class 1 and Class 2) were aware of the point system, a leaderboard was used only in Class 1. A quasi-experimental mixed methods research design was utilised to answer two research questions about student performance and motivation. Data showed that a greater number of the participants in Class 2 completed more homework than the weekly point target required, compared to the participants in Class 1. The results of the study suggest that the participants' focus on the extrinsic rewards used by the leaderboard encouraged performance up to the reward threshold but once the threshold had been achieved, performance ceased. They also suggest that the leaderboard's use of points, rank, and forced social comparison to control behaviour resulted in the participants' internally leaning extrinsic motivation shifting to externally grounded extrinsic motivation, undermining intrinsic FL motivation more than supporting it. •This study investigated the use of leaderboards in a gamified EFL course at a Japanese university.•Two classes participated in the study; a leaderboard was used in one of the classes (Class 1).•Class 2 (i.e., non-leaderboard class) completed more homework than the weekly point target required compared with Class 1.•The leaderboard encouraged performance only up to the maximum reward threshold.•The leaderboard shifted internal extrinsic motivation to external extrinsic motivation, undermining intrinsic motivation.