Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Educational Research Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/edurev

The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A

T
systematic review of empirical evidence
Zamzami Zainuddina,∗, Samuel Kai Wah Chua, Muhammad Shujahata,
Corinne Jacqueline Pererab
a
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
b
Shangrao Normal University, China

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: The adoption of gamification in learning and instruction is perceived to have mass appeal among
Gamification the learners in stimulating motivation, learner engagement and social influence. This study is an
Motivation attempt to present a summary of the empirical findings of state-of-the-art literature in the
Engagement emerging field of gamification within the educational domain of learning and instruction. It
Social influence
reveals the latest scientific research evidence on the emerging trends of learning technologies and
Systematic literature review
gamification plugins along with extending the possibilities for future research directions in re-
Empirical evidence
volutionizing learning and instruction through gamification. A systematic literature review ex-
amined the thematic and content analysis of 46 empirical research papers published in the Web
of Science database between 2016 and 2019. The review critically appraised and evaluated the
various contradictions found in the literature along with setting the stage for the significance of
future research studies to re-examine the theoretical foundations of gamification, its methodo-
logical approaches, theoretical models, gaming platforms and apps, game mechanics and
learning outcomes. This study not only attempts to shed light on the novelty of gamified learning
perceived as a game-changer and key enabler of motivation, engagement, and user experience
but also sought to outline the key challenges and barriers of gamification.

1. Introduction

Gamification and game-based learning are very popular mobile and technological trends that use game elements to promote
desired behaviours and drive corporate learning outcomes. This method is built on constructivist learning, which predicates the need
for experiential learning via social interaction with the environment and peers (York & deHaan, 2018). The term ‘game-based
learning’ describes the use of gamified content as an e-learning technique to meet instructional goals (De-Marcos, Garcia-Lopez, &
Garcia-Cabot, 2016). In a corporate environment, organisational learning relates to strategic objectives with a serious purpose,
despite the level of game-based technology involved. For instance, word games use semantic and phonological skills to forge im-
portant connections between words, along with helping learners to expand their vocabulary and develop better language skills (Wu,
Richards, & Saw, 2014). Similarly, strategy-based math games and logic puzzles like Math Playground can help hone learners' logical
thinking.
The scientific definition of gamification is defined as the process of applying game elements to non-game contexts (Zimmerling,
Höllig, Sandner, & Welpe., 2019; Schöbel et al., 2020; Ding, Er, & Orey, 2018; Domínguez et al., 2013). The most commonly adopted

∗
Corresponding author. The University of Hong Kong, Room 219, Runme Shaw Building, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong.
E-mail addresses: zamzamizain@hku.hk, zamzami.hku@gmail.com (Z. Zainuddin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326
Received 6 March 2019; Received in revised form 16 February 2020; Accepted 25 February 2020
Available online 04 March 2020
1747-938X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

game elements in various fields of study are levels, points, badges, leader boards and avatars (Barata, Gama, Jorge, & Gonçalves,
2017). Many other mechanisms are also available on gamified systems, such as combat, content unlocking, gifting, boss fights, quests,
social graphs, certificates and memes (Buckley & Doyle, 2017). These mechanisms, known in gamification as ‘elements’, stimulate
learners to achieve greater goal orientation by increasing their persistence, learning by repetition, engaging in collaboration and
evoking fun and friendly competition with peers (Ding, 2019).
The pioneering studies of the gamification concept featured in Malone (1980) and the origins of the ‘Serious Games Initiative’
outlined in Sawyer and Rejeski (2002), were viewed as the initiatives taken towards creating the awareness and encouraging the
broader public to consider the use of serious game-based approaches within an educational context since game elements affordances
impact learners motivation, engagement, and social influence (Zhonggen, 2019). With the onset of gamification in education, Rapp,
Hopfgartner, Hamari, Linehan, and Cena (2019) further emphasised that the systematic deployment of gamified learning techniques
would potentially drive new breakthroughs in gamification research.
There is growing evidence to suggest that gamification is increasingly being accepted as an effective learning strategy used to
create highly engaging learning experiences. Based on the empirical evidence of recent studies, the success of digital games in
education has sought to validate the effects of gamification in support of its potential to improve motivation, engagement and social
influence while allowing students’ to immerse in experiential learning (Groening & Binnewies, 2019; Lopez & Tucker, 2019). In
recent years, gamification has created a widespread interest among academicians and networks of researchers, prompting them to
purposefully explore the gamut of gamified elements used as part of the instructional design process to deliver engaging experiences
and enhance programmes (Kyewski & Kramer, 2018; Tsay, Kofinas, & Luo, 2018). Despite its technological developments and sig-
nificant impact on learning and instruction, supporting and maintaining engagement in gamification pedagogies remain challenging
(Ding at al., 2018). Moreover, with gamification being a relatively new concept in the educational sector (Göksün & Gürsoy, 2019),
we believe that problems that arise must be addressed to develop a more mature understanding of its nature and process.
After entering a scientific debate concerning gamification in educational research, a critical review of state-of-the-art literature in
the nascent field of gamification uncovered critical research gaps that inadvertently raised perspectives for future research. The
seminal work of Landers, Bauer, Callan, and Armstrong (2015) on gamified learning highlights the need for establishing a strong
theoretical foundation for gamification. Edgar Dale theorised his “Cone of Experience” (1969) in instructional design as an analogy
that provides a concrete basis for reinforcing optimal learning, heightening students' sense of achievement and encouraging high
levels of engagement, which in turn facilitates better knowledge, retention and recall (Ryan & Rigby, 2020; Denisova, Cairns,
Guckelsberger, & Zendle, 2020). Considering the novelty of gamified learning strategized within the field of educational technology,
Lee and Reeves (2007) further suggest that Dale's Cone lends itself privy to the anticipated direction of instructional design.
Past seminal studies illustrate how a sound theoretical foundation and robust methodological approach can spur scientific and
educational rigor. An extensive review of state-of-the-art literature has demonstrated that empirical research can be of implicit help
for future studies by way of conceptualising theoretical frameworks and identifying relevant methods, amongst other potential
benefits. A summary of the systematic state-of-the-art literature review forges pathways for emerging research that is in line with
previous educational research studies (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2017; Bereczki & Karpati, 2018; Hainey, Connolly, Boyle, Wilson, & Razak,
2016; Qian & Clark, 2016; Rodrigues & Mogarro, 2019).
By undertaking a broad and comprehensive critical review, evaluation, synthesis and exploration of the contradictions found in
the literature, it can set an agenda for future discussions on how to resolve inconsistencies, build relevant theoretical foundations and
increase the practice of gamification in educational settings. This review provides a bird's-eye view of the empirical research re-
presentative of current trends, along with imparting valuable guidance for researchers to formulate theoretical propositions based on
current evaluation practices. Again, this will be in line with the recommendations put forth by Landers et al., (2015) in addressing the
theoretical foundations of gamification research. Although a number of empirical studies have alluded to the positive impact of
gamified learning outcomes (Göksün & Gürsoy, 2019; Hassan, Habiba, Majeed, & Shoaib, 2019; Huang & Hew, 2018; Huang, Hew, &
Lo, 2019; Lo & Hew, 2018), some other studies have yielded contradictory findings (Baydas & Cicek, 2019; Ding, 2019; Kyewski &
Kramer, 2018; Rachels & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2018).

2. Research purpose, objectives and research questions

Given the variation in experience that might arise due to differences in implementation models, participants characteristics,
methodological approaches, gaming platforms or apps, impacts and contradictions found in the literature, the present review aims to
evaluate, synthesise and present state-of-the-art literature on gamification in educational domains, touching on methodological
approaches, theoretical models, common platforms and apps, game mechanics and its inherent learning outcomes. Besides, this study
also provides the framework that can explore unchartered research avenues in the field of gamification and the stimulus that can
initiate further investigation of unexplored areas of gamification. Furthermore, the study suggests possible steps for future research
directed at establishing strong theoretical foundations and prescribing the list of challenges and barriers that impede the effective
implementation of gamification design. A systematic literature review of studies published in the Web of Science database from 2016
to 2019 was performed using thematic and content analysis.
In this research study, two primary objectives are being pursued:

1. To evaluate the existing gamified methodological approaches, theoretical models, gaming platforms and apps, game mechanics
and learning outcomes ascribed to the existing state-of-the-art literature on gamification research.
2. To explore future research avenues in the areas of advancing gamified methodological approaches, theoretical models, gaming

2
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

platforms and apps, game mechanics and learning outcomes.

The following research questions were operationalised based on the above research objectives:

1. What methodological approaches have been used in gamification research?

2. What are the underlying theoretical models used in gamification research?
3. What platforms or apps have been used in gamification research?
4. What are the participants' levels of education and the most common game mechanics?
5. What are the potential effects of implementing gamification in various fields of education?
6. What are the unexplored future research avenues in gamification research?

3. Methods

3.1. Research design

This research process included a systematic review of published literature on e-learning and pedagogical instruction (Bozkurt
et al., 2015; Subhash & Cudney, 2018; van Leeuwen & Janssen, 2019; Özyurt & Özyurt, 2015). The empirical evidence gathered from
this review was gleaned from 46 refereed journal articles published between 2016 and 2019. A rigorous methodological research
technique was used for the systematic interpretation of empirical documentation (Braun, Clarke, Hayfield, & Terry, 2019;
Krippendorff, 2018). This systematic methodological approach used a combination of content and thematic analysis, making it
possible to synthesise all of the data (i.e., phrases) into themes (e.g. positive and negative learning outcomes or impacts), and enable
textual data to be converted into meaningful codes, themes and categories (e.g. keywords, theories, game mechanics and gamification
platforms).
This systematic approach and review serves to gauge research trends on thematic and content analysis in the field of educational
technology. Additionally, this work is in line with the study by Bozkurt et al. (2015), in which 861 published articles from 7 scholarly
journals were reviewed. The review systematically explored the general trends of research in the field of distance education between
2009 and 2013. The most frequently used keywords, theoretical and conceptual backgrounds, research designs, data collection
instruments, data analysis techniques, type of variables, targeted population, participant groups, cited references and cited authors
were examined in this review. In another study carried out by Özyurt and Özyurt (2015), p. 69 articles published between 2005 and
2014 were examined based on the adaptation of individualised learning styles that accommodate adaptive e-learning environments.
These studies were categorised according to purpose, nature, method, participant characteristics, level, data collection tools, learner
modelling, learning styles, subject and findings.

3.2. Search process

To facilitate database searches, the present study investigated peer-reviewed scholarly articles published from 2016 to the middle
of 2019. All articles were accessed from 18 January 2018 to 15 June 2019 and underwent a bibliometric citation impact analysis
through the Web of Science database (InCites Journal Citation), the premier bibliographic database. Databases searched were
ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost Web, Emerald Insight, Taylor & Francis Online, Wiley Online Library and SpringerLink. Terms used were
‘gamification’, ‘gamify’, ‘gamifying’ and ‘gamified’. During the document review, the articles that contained the above-mentioned
keywords were downloaded and reviewed one by one by three researchers.
One hundred and ninety-nine articles were found in the ScienceDirect database, 478 from EBSCOhost Web, 64 from Wiley Online
Library, 439 from Emerald Insight, 141 from Taylor & Francis Online and 84 from SpringerLink (n = 1405). The following articles
were removed from the study: (1) duplicate studies (n = 272); (2) articles from conference proceedings, books and books chapters
were excluded (n = 470); (3) articles that were not related to learning and instruction were also removed (n = 359); and (4) papers
not indexed by the Clarivate Analytics databases were removed (n = 258). Forty-six articles that focused on learning and instruction
were thoroughly reviewed (2016, 5 articles; 2017, 10 articles; 2018, 16 articles; and 2019, 15 articles; Table 1).

3.3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria of research studies

The current study used rigorous and extensive criteria and processes to ensure generalisation of the findings and avoid biases in
the studies selection. The academic journals were selected from Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science to ensure the inclusion of quality
and high impact scientific content. This database is considered among the world's most trusted citation indices platform for evidence-
based quality scientific information (Martín-Martín, Orduna-Malea, Thelwall, & López-Cózar, 2018; Clarivate Analytics, 2017).
The studies were included in the analyses only if they met the following criteria: (1) the studies had to be empirical research
papers published in the journals indexed by the Web of Science (SSCI). This means that the book chapters, conference proceedings,
books, review and theoretical articles were not considered; (2) the studies had to be conducted in all levels of education environments
across the world, including primary, secondary, and higher education; (3) empirical research (qualitative, quantitative and mixed-
methods) in learning and instruction contexts; (4) the studies with explicit descriptions of the underlying theory and methods; and 5)
the studies written in English.
To avoid biases during the selection and review of articles, following the above-mentioned criteria, the first three authors

3
 Z. Zainuddin, et al.

Table 1
Lists of selected articles and journals analysed from Web of Science database (2016–2019).
No. Studies Journal Publisher Number of articles Impact Factor Categories
(JCR 2018)

1 Adukaite et al. (2017); Computers & Education Elsevier 16 5.627 Education and educational research
Albuquerque et al. (2017); Buckley and Doyle (2017); De-Marcos
et al. (2016); Doumanis et al. (2019); Ding et al. (2017); Ding et al.
(2018); Garcia-Sanjuan et al. (2018); Ge (2018); Göksün and
Gürsoy (2019); Huang and Hew (2018); Jagušt et al. (2018);
Kyewski and Kramer (2018); Tsay et al. (2018); van Roy and Zaman
(2018); Zainuddin (2018)
2 Aldemir et al. (2018); Barata et al. (2017); Çakıroglu et al. (2017); Computers in Human Behavior Elsevier 10 4.306 Psychology, multidisciplinary psychology,
da Rocha Seixas et al. (2016); Ding (2019); Kuo and Chuang experimental
(2016); Groening and Binnewies (2019); Landers and Armstrong
(2017); Lopez and Tucker (2019); Mekler et al. (2017)
3 Bouchrika et al. (2019); Hassan et al. (2019); Huang et al. (2019); Interactive Learning Taylor & Francis 5 1.929 Education and educational research
Lo and Hew (2018); Zatarain Cabada et al. (2018) Environments
4 Jo et al. (2018); Jurgelaitis et al. (2019); Ortiz-Rojas, et al (2019); Computer Applications in Wiley 4 1.435 Computer science, interdisciplinary
Sousa-Vieira et al. (2016) Engineering Education applications; education, scientific disciplines
engineering, multidisciplinary

4
5 Yildirim (2017) Internet and Higher Education
6 Özdener (2018) Telematics and Informatics
7 Chang and Wei (2016) Educational Technology &
Society
8 Sanchez-Martin and Davila-Acedo (2017) Thinking Skills and Creativity
9 Aparicio et al. (2019) Information & Management
10 Baydas and Cicek (2019) Technology, Pedagogy and
Education
11 Davis et al. (2018) Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning
12 Ioannou (2019) Educational Technology
Research and Development
13 Rachels and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2018) Computer Assisted Language
Learning
14 Toda et al. (2019) International Journal of
Information Management
15 Wu (2018) Innovations in Education and
Teaching International
TOTAL
Elsevier 1 5.284 Education and educational research
Elsevier 1 3.714 Information science and library science
National Taiwan Normal 1 1.767 (IF 2017) Education and educational research
University, Taiwan
Elsevier 1 1.655 Education and educational research
Elsevier 1 4.120 Information science and library science;
Taylor & Francis 1 1.712 management
Education and educational research
Wiley 1 2.451 Education and educational research
Springer 1 2.115 Education and educational research
Taylor & Francis 1 2.018 Education and educational research;
linguistics
Elsevier 1 5.063 Information science and library science
Taylor & Francis 1 1.171 Education and educational research
46 articles
Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

searched and selected the research studies independent of each other. Three researchers or authors of this study worked separately in
selecting the articles that were relevant to the study. After the first process, researcher 1 found 48 relevant articles, researcher 2 found
47 articles and researcher 3 found 46 articles. After debating each other about the differences in the searched studies against the
established criteria, the authors selected a total of 46 studies and excluded the following two studies.
Maican, Lixandroiu, and Constantin (2016)'s article was excluded because it was not conducted in the learning and instruction
context. The study of Lindberg, Laine, and Haaranen (2019) was also removed because of it not being an empirical study. Finally, the
chosen 46 articles were also reviewed by the fourth author of this study (researcher 4) to ensure the merit selection based on criteria
established.
Most of the represented articles are considered high-quality and published in higher-ranked journals in the educational tech-
nology field (i.e., Computers & Education; Interactive Learning Environments; See Table 1). The participants came from a variety of
cultural backgrounds and different countries, such as Belgium, Brazil, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia,
Ireland, Lithuania, Mexico, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, the
United States of America and Turkey. All selected samples for this study also mostly represented articles repeated among the da-
tabases. From this review, we assume that this set of articles is strong enough to provide valid generalisations of gamification study in
educational fields, represented educational journals and nationalities from diverse countries.

3.4. Data collection procedure and analysis

In the face of rapid scientific development, there is a pressing need to validate content analysis to make valid inferences and
determine the quality of findings. In this study, the validation of data collection began with formulating the study objectives, followed
by a review and analysis of the trends of gamification research based on methodological approaches, fields of study, purposes,
theories, platforms and effects. As in the document review, a systematic keyword search was conducted and was found to be a useful
way of achieving broad data coverage and preserving the study's credibility. Document analysis is an invaluable part of triangulation.
In seeking convergence and corroboration, triangulating various data sources helps provide a confluence of evidence that breeds
credibility (Kern, 2018). The data obtained via thematic content analysis were then descriptively analysed and summarised in terms
of frequency, percentages, identified themes, concepts and meanings of the text.

4. Findings

This section presents the key findings in relation to the primary research objectives. We used a novel approach to analyse and
identify the most frequently used keywords used in the 46 selected gamification-themed articles. A total of 286 keywords were
tallied. Starting our keyword query semantics with the most used keyword, the top three are ‘gamification’ (46 articles), ‘engagement’
(14 articles) and ‘motivation’ (12 articles). This implies that the gamification research in the analysed studies primarily discussed
issues related to motivation and engagement; more details are reported in the section ‘Gamification impacts on learning and in-
struction’.

4.1. Methodological approach

This section presents a summary of the methodological approaches undertaken. Most studies were found to use a quantitative
approach, followed by the mixed-methods approach. In 25 of these articles, it was either implicitly and/or explicitly inferred that
quantitative methods were used employing various data collection procedures, such as experimental tests, assessments and ques-
tionnaire surveys (Table 2).
Further analysis indicated that 19 papers (41.3%) used a mixed-methods approach to collect data via various procedures. These
papers used multiple data sources to collect data. These include tests, assessments, questionnaire surveys, interviews and observa-
tions (Table 2). In addition to quantitative and mixed-methods approaches, two studies adopted the qualitative approach and the data
was collected via observations, interviews and document analysis (Table 2).

Table 2
Methods used in gamification studies.
No Methods Number of articles Studies

1 Quantitative 25 Adukaite et al. (2017); Albuquerque et al. (2017); Aparicio et al. (2019); Barata et al. (2017); Bouchrika et al.
(2019); Buckley and Doyle (2017); Davis et al. (2018); De-Marcos et al. (2016); Doumanis et al. (2019); Ge (2018);
Groening and Binnewies (2019); Hassan et al. (2019); Jurgelaitis et al. (2019); Kyewski and Kramer (2018);
Landers and Armstrong (2017); Lopez and Tucker (2019); Mekler et al. (2017); Ortiz-Rojas et al. (2019); Rachels &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2018; Sanchez-Martin and Davila-Acedo (2017); Tsay et al. (2018); van Roy and Zaman
(2018); Wu (2018); Yildrim (2017); Zatarain Cabada et al. (2018)
2 Mixed methods 19 Baydas and Cicek (2019); Çakıroglu et al. (2017); Chang and Wei (2016); da Rocha Seixas et al. (2016); Ding at al.
(2018); Ding et al. (2017); Ding (2019); Garcia-Sanjuan et al. (2018); Göksün and Gürsoy (2019); Huang and Hew
(2018); Huang et al. (2019); Jagušt et al. (2018); Jo et al. (2018); Kuo and Chuang (2016); Lo and Hew (2018);
Özdener (2018); Sousa-Vieira et al. (2016); Toda et al. (2019); Zainuddin (2018)
3 Qualitative 2 Aldemir et al. (2018); Ioannou (2019)

5
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

Fig. 1. Distribution of data collection procedures.

We also found a design-based research study used to design gamification instruction, wherein the data was collected from
multiple sources. For instance, tests and questionnaire surveys were used by Kuo and Chuang (2016). This study is considered a
mixed-methods study because both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed. Although ‘design-based research’
was not explicitly mentioned in the said publication, we nonetheless consider using this term because the research focused on product
development processes. In another instance, a design-based study attempts to solve current real-world problems by designing and
enacting interventions, extending theories and refining design principles (Wang & Hannafin, 2005). Overall, several papers were
found to match the characteristics of design-based research approach in principle (Garcia-Sanjuan, Jurdi, Jaen, & Nacher, 2018; Jo,
Jun, & Lim., 2018; Jurgelaitis, Čeponienė; Čeponis, & Drungilas, 2019; Kuo & Chuang, 2016; Lo & Hew, 2018; Sousa-Vieira, López-
Ardao, Fernández-Veiga, Rodríguez-Pérez, & Herrería-Alonso, 2016; van Roy & Zaman, 2018; Zatarain Cabada, Barrón Estrada, Ríos
Félix, & Alor Hernández, 2018).
As for the overall data collection techniques used, questionnaires (34 articles) were most frequently used, followed by experi-
mental tests or assessments (27 articles), interviews (16 articles), observations (5 articles) and document analysis (1 article). Fig. 1
summarises the percentile values of each research method and data collection procedure used in this study.
Considering the empirical evidence revealed by most studies regarding the impact of gamification on human psychology, in
particular motivation and engagement, we thought it crucial to identify the average intervention duration in the analysed articles. We
found that most intervention studies were conducted within a span of a few weeks or months: 4 weeks (Ortiz-Rojas, Chiluiza, &
Valcke, 2019); 10 weeks (Albuquerque, Bittencourt, Coelho, & Silva, 2017); 20 weeks (Lo & Hew, 2018) and 10 months (Bouchrika,
Harrati, Wanick, & Wills, 2019). Only a single longitudinal study (Barata et al., 2017) was conducted over 3 years to identify the
effects of gamification on students’ psychological motivation and engagement.

4.2. Theoretical models

This analysis was conducted to identify successful game design elements that align well with established learning theories.
Technically, in a research study, the theoretical model helps frame the research questions. In much the same way, this analysis
attempted to answer the research question regarding the underlying theoretical models used in gamification research. Table 3 lists
the learning theories applicable to the gamification model. It indicates that 29 articles made implicit mention of their theoretical
foundations, whilst the remaining articles had no theoretical content. Albuquerque et al. (2017) conducted an experimental study in
an online gamified educational environment that tapped the foundations of educational theory for online learning. In contrast, Chang
and Wei (2016) did not provide a conceptual framework based on a theoretical foundation. Instead, the concept of reputation points,
commonly adopted by eBay and Amazon.com, was used to increase system reliability and learner engagement in a massive open
online course (MOOC).
As gamified learning aligns with established theories of learning, most of the analysed studies adopted self-determination theory
(SDT) as the underlying theoretical framework. According to Seaborn and Fels (2015), SDT is the most frequently used psychological
theory in gamification research. SDT was found to be the salient theoretical framework of these 14 gamification studies (Table 3). It
offers provisions that improve a student's sense of autonomy, competence and relatedness, as the three innate psychological needs are
supported by the internal factor of motivation (Buil, Catalán, & Martínez, 2020; Nishihara, Parwak, Edogun, Park, & Lee, 2020). It
emphasises that satisfying students' three innate psychological needs reinforces students' intrinsic motivation. The more these needs
are satisfied, the greater the intrinsic motivation that arises in gamified activities. Buil et al. (2020) provides the empirical evidence
based on SDT that uses various game design elements to motivate students' and satisfy their need for competence, autonomy and
relatedness (Fig. 2).
The second most common theory in gamification research is flow theory, proposed by Csikszentmihalyi (2017) in which people
who are immersed in a challenging activity like gaming can experience the ‘flow’ when they achieve peak performance. Corre-
spondingly, flow theory can contribute towards promoting active engagement and effective learning. In another study, it is found that
when game elements are embedded in gaming activities, it can potentially lead individuals to a state of flow provided that the
challenge is appropriate to the skill level of the individual (Rachels & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2018). This also means that game elements

6
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

Table 3
Learning theories/models applied in gamification studies.
No. Learning Theories/Models Studies

1 Self-determination theory Aldemir et al. (2018); Baydas and Cicek (2019); Ding et al. (2017); Ding et al. (2018);
Huang and Hew (2018); Huang et al. (2019); Jurgelaitis et al. (2019); Kuo and Chuang
(2016); Lo and Hew (2018); Lopez and Tucker (2019); Mekler et al. (2017); Tsay et al.
(2018); van Roy and Zaman (2018); Zainuddin (2018)
2 Flow theory Huang and Hew (2018); Jagušt et al. (2018); Jurgelaitis et al. (2019); Rachels and
Rockinson-Szapkiw (2018)
3 Goal-setting theory Groening and Binnewies (2019); Huang and Hew (2018); Huang et al. (2019)
4 Cognitive evaluation theory Kyewski and Kramer (2018); Lopez and Tucker (2019)
5 Cognitive load theory Landers and Armstrong (2017); Wu (2018)
6 Behaviour reinforcement theory Huang and Hew (2018); Huang et al. (2019)
7 Social comparison theory Huang and Hew (2018); Huang et al. (2019)
8 Theory-driven gamification design model: goal, access, Huang and Hew (2018); Huang et al. (2019)
feedback, challenge and collaboration
9 Theory of reasoned action Adukaite et al. (2017)
10 Rational choice theory Barata et al. (2017)
11 Taxation theory Buckley and Doyle (2017)
12 Information systems success model/information systems Aparicio et al. (2019)
theory
13 Presence pedagogy model Doumanis et al. (2019)
14 Eisenkraft's 7E instructional Model Göksün and Gürsoy (2019)
15 Felder-Silverman learning style model Hassan et al. (2019)
16 Unified Modelling Language Jurgelaitis et al. (2019)
17 Fogg's behaviour model Jurgelaitis et al. (2019)
18 Merrill's first principles of instruction design theory Lo and Hew (2018)
19 Landers' theory of gamified learning Ortiz-Rojas et al. (2019)
20 Social development theory: zone of proximal development and Davis et al. (2018); Rachels and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2018)
scaffolding
21 Self-efficacy theory Rachels and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2018)
22 Constructivist learning theory Landers and Armstrong (2017)
23 Technology-enhanced training effectiveness model Landers and Armstrong (2017)

Fig. 2. Matching psychological needs (SDT) to game design elements.

have the capacity to reinforce a more enjoyable and engaging player experience and further accentuate their gamified learning
experience.
The goal-setting theory has also been adopted in some studies. For instance, Groening and Binnewies (2019) reported that digital
achievements provide a goal-setting function in line with the goal-setting theory and hypothesised that setting a difficult goal would
direct users to a high level of motivation and better performance. Gamified learning also adheres to theories of learning that recognise
the important roles of scaffolding, individualised learning and social interaction. The concept of scaffolding is in keeping with
Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978) and the principles outlined in SDT, which maintains that the learning
process can be augmented through these motivational affordances when learners interact with their more proficient peers. Some
articles have proposed models of gamified learning. For instance, Ioannou (2019) introduced a model of gameful design for learning
that used interactive tabletops, to build on established pedagogy and technological advancement. Huang and Hew (2018) also
developed a theory-driven gamification design model that posits five crucial motivating elements in gamification design that can be
reified in items such as badges and leader boards. Further explanations for matching motivation elements with various types of
theories, game elements and purposes were summarised and elaborated by Huang et al. (2019) and Huang and Hew (2018).

7
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

Table 4
Adapted gamification platforms.
Name of platform Studies

ClassDojo and ClassBadges da Rocha Seixas et al. (2016)

Ribbonhero of Microsoft De-Marcos et al. (2016)
Rain classroom Ge (2018)
Quizbot Garcia-Sanjuan et al. (2018)
Duolingo Rachels & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2018
Kahoot and Quizizz Baydas and Cicek (2019); Göksün and Gürsoy (2019)
Math Widgets Jagušt et al. (2018)
Google + Communities van Roy and Zaman (2018)
iSpring Learn LMS Zainuddin (2018)

4.3. Gamification platforms and apps

In line with one of the research questions, the following is a summary of the analysis performed to identify the platforms and apps
used in gamification research. We found that most of the 46 analysed papers described studies that used existing platforms from
various sources (Table 4).
Furthermore, some studies have illustrated the integration of game-based elements into the learning management system (LMS) as
a positive reinforcement strategy to motivate and engage students in gamified learning. For example, with the integration of ga-
mification using Web 2.0 tools, these technological solutions offered new functions for MOOCs (Coursera, Udacity, and edX)
(Aparicio, Oliveira, Bacao, & Painho, 2019; Chang & Wei, 2016), wiki platforms (Wikispaces.com; Özdener, 2018), moodle platforms
or institutional LMS (Barata et al., 2017; Huang & Hew, 2018; Huang et al., 2019; Jurgelaitis, Čeponienė, Čeponis, & Drungilas, 2019;
Kyewski & Kramer, 2018; Lo & Hew, 2018; Ortiz-Rojas et al., 2019). Buckley and Doyle (2017) used the National Budget Forecasting
Project as a gamified learning intervention to prompt student engagement and independent learning and facilitate social and cog-
nitive skills.
We also found that several studies developed their gamification platforms to prioritise user-centric needs and help provide an
impactful online experience for the diverse range of users. These platforms aimed to promote students' learning performance and
engagement (Kuo & Chuang, 2016; Sung & Hwang, 2013), participation in online discussions using the gamified tool ‘gEchoLu’ (Ding,
Kim, & Orey, 2017, 2018; Ding, 2019) and their involvement in online post-lecture questions (Bouchrika et al., 2019).

4.4. Participants’ levels of education and game elements used

Most of the 46 studies analysed involved adult learners or higher education students (Table 5), including a class of 158 under-
graduate students in their third year of study for a business degree (Buckley & Doyle, 2017) and 262 undergraduate students at a large
university on the east coast of the US (Landers & Armstrong, 2017). Few gamification studies have been implemented in primary or
secondary schools. In this study, we found only five studies conducted at the elementary school level and five at the secondary school
level (Table 5).
The terms ‘game elements’ and ‘mechanics’ have been frequently used in gamification research. We believe that reviewing the
main game components used in gamified learning and instruction is crucial. Thus, this section briefly summarises the most common
game principles in the 46 studies analysed. (Refer to the appendix for the list of game elements identified in the reviewed articles)
This analysis can serve as a reference point for readers and researchers regarding which types of game elements can and should be
implemented in their studies and also serve to guide informed debate. We found that the game mechanics most frequently used were
points, leader boards and badges (Fig. 3).
Meanwhile, the students in nearly all of the articles identified leader boards as the most engaging of all game elements. Aldemir,
Celik, and Kaplan (2018) reported that most of the participants’ preference for the leader board motivated them to engage in gamified

Table 5
Participants’ levels of education.
Level of education Studies

Adult/Higher education Albuquerque et al. (2017); Aldemir et al. (2018); Aparicio et al. (2019); Barata et al. (2017); Baydas and Cicek (2019); Bouchrika
et al. (2019); Buckley and Doyle (2017); Çakıroglu et al. (2017); Chang and Wei (2016); Davis et al. (2018); De-Marcos et al. (2016);
Ding et al. (2017); Ding et al. (2018); Ding (2019); Ge (2018); Göksün and Gürsoy (2019); Groening and Binnewies (2019); Hassan
et al. (2019); Huang and Hew (2018); Huang et al. (2019); Jurgelaitis et al. (2019); Kuo and Chuang (2016); Kyewski and Kramer
(2018); Landers and Armstrong (2017); Lopez and Tucker (2019); Mekler et al. (2017); Ortiz-Rojas et al. (2019); Özdener (2018);
Sánchez-Martín (2017); Sousa-Vieira et al. (2016); Toda et al. (2019); Tsay et al. (2018); van Roy and Zaman (2018); Wu (2018);
Yildirim (2017); Zatarain Cabada et al. (2018)
Secondary school Adukaite et al. (2017); Doumanis et al. (2019); Jo et al. (2018); Lo and Hew (2018); Zainuddin (2018)
Primary school da Rocha Seixas et al. (2016); Garcia-Sanjuan et al. (2018); Ioannou (2019); Jagušt et al. (2018); Rachels & Rockinson-Szapkiw,
2018

8
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

Fig. 3. Summary game mechanics most commonly used in education.

flipped class instruction and blended learning during class (Zainuddin, 2018). They also suggested that the notion of leader boards
created a more competitive environment and a greater motivation to learn. In another study, gamifying a course using leader boards
led to significantly better learning performance, motivation and engagement (Ortiz-Rojas et al., 2019). Chang and Wei (2016) also
reported that team leader boards were considered the third most engaging gamification method, after virtual gifts and points. This
element led students to perceive a strong social connectivity via competition and comparison of points and scores on the leader
boards. Based on this finding, we call for future researchers to apply other types of game principles in their gamified learning studies,
not just points, badges and leader boards.

4.5. Gamification impacts on learning and instruction

This section attempts to answer the research question regarding the effects of the use of gamification in various fields of edu-
cation. Based on our review of the 46 empirical articles, three major positive themes emerged: learning achievement, motivation and
engagement, and interaction and social connection. A brief report of the ineffective impacts of gamified learning concepts follows.
The summary of the thematic map is depicted in Fig. 4, and the key findings of the analysed articles are presented in the appendix.

4.5.1. Motivation and engagement

The notion of gamification makes the course and learning exercise more attractive and encourages students to work more actively
via digital means, such as earning badges and gaining a top position on a leader board (Barata, 2017; Baydas & Cicek, 2019). The
gamification component is believed to be effective in enhancing students’ motivation and improving their learning experience,
engagement and performance. Several studies have shown that the addition of game mechanics (such as badges, levels and leader
boards) has a positive effect on learner engagement. However, critics have argued that this only creates extrinsic motivation, not
intrinsic motivation; that is, learners complete a task simply to earn a badge, not for the satisfaction of gaining new knowledge and
skills. This, they have claimed, cannot sustain long-term engagement.
Gamification can be a powerful motivator, but only when used as part of a robust engagement strategy. Several studies have
reported that the use of game principles as external incentives or rewards successfully addresses learners' extrinsic motivation
(Buckley, 2017). This finding is in line with that of Ding et al. (2017), who found that the gamification concept successfully granted
students a huge amount of extrinsic motivation but not intrinsic motivation. From a pedagogical perspective, it is believed that the
provision of extrinsic rewards will likely damage intrinsic motivation (Mekler, Bruhlmann, Tuch, & Opwis, 2017). Meanwhile, some
authors have claimed that gamification influences both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (Adukaite, van Zyl, Er, & Cantoni, 2017;
Jurgelaitis et al., 2019). As the principles of games are innately enjoyable and fun for players, these values are typically connected to
intrinsic motivation. Thus, the positive value created by attracting, motivating, engaging and retaining users’ behaviour in the
gamified learning process is considered to be an intrinsic motivation (Kuo & Chuang, 2016) (Table 6).
We believe that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation play crucial roles in promoting students' learning engagement through the
gamified learning approach, aimed at meeting the three basic needs: competence, autonomy and relatedness. It should not be claimed
that extrinsic motivation is always negative. SDT, although rarely discussed and outlined in major studies of gamification, clearly
outlines four types of extrinsic motivation: external, introjected, identified and integrated regulation. Integrated regulation has
intrinsic properties; the desire to be self-aware guides an individual's behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 2002). This implies that a good
gamification design seeks to understand and align the learning objectives with a student's intrinsic motivation. With extrinsic rewards
and an intrinsically satisfying design, the players (students) embark on their journey of mastery, which requires elements such as
desire, incentive, challenge, reward and feedback to create learning engagement.
The values of engagement and motivation are always positively correlated with a student's academic performance. The more
engaged a student is, the more likely he or she is to participate and the more intrinsic motivation he or she has (Coffman, 2013). The
findings of this analysis indicate that the role of engagement in the teaching-learning process leads to students' positive behaviour

9
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

Fig. 4. Thematic map (generated by NVivo 11 for Windows).

Table 6
Summary of key findings regarding learning engagement and motivation in gamification research.
Learning engagement/motivation Studies

• Improved learning motivation through positive values of friendly competition,

challenge, socialisation and imagination. Narrative imagination components
Aldemir et al. (2018); Özdener (2018)

played a unique role in creating successful gamification initiatives in the

classroom
• Resulted in students' intrinsic motivation (e.g., perceived playfulness, fun,
enjoyment, usefulness, meaningfulness and attractiveness
Adukaite et al. (2017); Jurgelaitis et al. (2019)

• Friendly competition positively influenced learners' engagement Çakıroglu et al. (2017)

• Virtual goods became one of the most engaging gamification mechanics in a
gamified MOOC platform
Chang and Wei (2016)

• Gamification instruction had positive effects on students' engagement in terms

of behaviour, emotion and cognition
Çakıroglu et al. (2017); da Rocha Seixas et al. (2016); Ding et al. (2017);
Ding et al. (2018); Göksün and Gürsoy (2019); Hassan et al. (2019);
Huang and Hew (2018); Huang et al. (2019); Lo and Hew (2018); Tsay
et al. (2018); Sánchez-Martín (2017); Zatarain Cabada et al. (2018)
• The gamification quizzes conducted at the beginning and end of each class
reinforced students' mastery of the course, motivated them during the class
Göksün and Gürsoy (2019); Huang and Hew (2018); Huang et al. (2019);
Jo et al. (2018); Lo and Hew (2018); Zainuddin (2018)
activity and improved their cognitive, emotional and behavioural engagement

enhances higher-level critical thinking skills and promotes meaningful learning experiences. A lack of learning engagement can be a
deterrent that negates learning outcomes because engagement is the basis for students' retention at any level of education. Fur-
thermore, numerous research studies have documented evidence on the relative advantages of intrinsic motivation whereby

10
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

Table 7
Summary of key findings regarding academic achievement in gamification research.
Learning engagement/motivation

The use of a gamification concept in the learning activity and assessment has significantly improved students' academic achievement compared with a non-
gamified instructional classroom and conventional assessment

Studies that support this finding

Çakıroglu et al. (2017); De-Marcos et al. (2016); Huang et al. (2019); Jo et al. (2018); Jurgelaitis et al. (2019); Landers and Armstrong (2017); Lo and Hew (2018);
Mekler et al. (2017); Ortiz-Rojas et al. (2019); Özdener (2018); Tsay et al. (2018); Yildirim (2017); Yildirim (2017); Zainuddin (2018); Zatarain Cabada et al.
(2018)

motivated students are more likely to be wholly engaged in the learning process, and the more students stay engaged, the more fun
and joy they have learning and the more intrinsically motivated they will be.

4.5.2. Learning achievement

Gamification studies have reported improvements not only in students' motivation and engagement, but also in their learning
achievement. The principle of ‘challenge’ in a gamified system makes a significant contribution to positive learning achievements
(Sánchez-Martín, Cañada-Cañada, & Dávila-Acedo, 2017). Numerous strategies describe the adaptation of gamified concepts to
enhance students' positive learning outcomes. Integrating this concept into contemporary pedagogical instruction such as flipped
learning could be an alternative and effective strategy to enhance students' learning achievement, as reported in some studies (Huang
et al., 2019; Jagušt, Botički, & So, 2018; Jo, Jun, & Lim, 2018; Lo & Hew, 2018; Zainuddin, 2018), or in the context of the Wiki
classroom (Özdener, 2018) and MOOCs (Aparicio et al., 2019; Chang & Wei, 2016). The analysis indicated that the enhancements to
students' learning achievement reported in numerous studies were achieved by integrating gamification into the grading process or as
a tool for innovative assessment. The tool most frequently used was a gamified formative assessment system, which provided im-
mediate and effective feedback. In line with this, most publications, particularly in experimental research studies, have reported that
gamified assessment improved students' feedback and scores relative to conventional assessment without gamification (Table 7).
Furthermore, some studies have noted that motivation is an important predictor of student academic achievement and it influ-
ences the effort and time a student spends on learning (Çakıroglu, Başıbuyuk, Guler, Atabay, & Memiş, 2017; Chang & Wei, 2016;
Chang & Wei, 2016; Davis, Sridharan, Koepke, Singh, & Boiko, 2018; Göksün & Gürsoy, 2019; Groening & Binnewies, 2019; Kyewski
& Kramer, 2018; Sánchez-Martín et al., 2017; Yildirim, 2017). This finding implies that an association exists between learning
achievement and engagement; the more engaged students are, the greater their achievement.

4.5.3. Interaction and social connection

The notion of a gamified system facilitates peer-based feedback with social learning activities and collaborative learning cultures
and is a worthy means to induce users to increase their interactivity and connectivity (Bouchrika et al., 2019; Tsay et al., 2018).
Numerous studies have shown that gamification should be imbued with various types of game design elements to create engaging
gamification services that afford social interaction and socialisation amongst students (Chang & Wei, 2016; Özdener, 201; Sailer,
Hense, Mayr, & Mandl, 2017). Team leader boards were considered as the third most engaging gamification element after virtual gifts
and points due to their benefits in promoting social connection amongst users. This element led students to engage in strong social
connectivity via competition and comparison of points and scores on the leader boards (Chang & Wei, 2016).
Social graphs have also been reported to successfully promote social connectivity amongst users in tracing performance progress
(Ding et al., 2017). The students can share any type of virtual goods or gifts with other students who have contributed to the learning
activity or leave a comment on their peers' posts. In this context, sharing gifts with others may increase students' interaction and sense
of community. In addition to leader boards, social graphs, gifts and virtual goods, several other game-based elements have been used
to support students' social interaction or perceived need for relatedness, including teammates, meaningful stories, quests and content
unblocking (Sailer et al., 2017). The integration of game-based elements into other learning platforms could also be an alternative to
enhance students’ learning interaction and collaboration, such as in the Wiki-based learning context (Özdener, 2018) or in the context
of a MOOC with the use of multiple game elements such reputation points, peer tutoring, competition, altruism, group identification
and peer appraisal (Chang & Wei, 2016).
There is also the social comparison theory that stems from the drive for self-evaluation and the aspiration to be better than others
with whom one actively compares oneself. The social comparison theory posits that people need to socialize and seek social re-
cognition and self-appraisal (Ding et al., 2017). It builds upon the assumption that people in general have an inherent desire to
compare themselves with others to be able to relate to their own significant achievements (Olivier, Archambault, De Clercq, &
Galand, 2019).
Social connectedness in gamified activities has an integral part to play in inducing competition and social comparison. De-Marcos
et al. (2016) and Domínguez et al. (2013) made connections between social comparison and competitiveness, claiming that com-
petitive persons have greater interest in social comparisons than less competitive individuals. That said, the term ‘social comparison’

11
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

Table 8
Ineffective impacts of gamification concept in educational contexts.
Findings Study

• Badges
period
did not successfully increase intrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation decreased during the instructional Kyewski and Kramer (2018)

• Points, levels and leader boards contributed to students' extrinsic motivation and have not significantly increased
students' competence, need for satisfaction and intrinsic motivation
Mekler et al. (2017)

• No difference in academic performance between the two groups; Wiki-only and gamified-Wiki Özdener (2018)
• Points and badges were not satisfactory and failed to promote students' sense of community Ding et al. (2017)
• Students focused on earning badges and gaining a place on the leader board rather than engaging in learning the
content in depth during the gamification process
Baydas and Cicek (2019)

• Technical issues (user-friendly); lack of support for multiple users seeking to use the systems at the same time;
failure to promote students' sense of community
Ding (2019)

• Projects (workload) were too large and engagement in online discussions was low Ding at al. (2018)
• Students' performance dropped when the level of challenge became too high and they grew frustrated Jagušt et al. (2018)
• Duolingo
No significant statistical difference in self-efficacy and learning achievement between a gamification class via
and a traditional face-to-face learning environment
Rachels and Rockinson-Szapkiw,
2018

in this study draws implications on the social comparison theory to illustrate how game elements like leaderboards have the potential
of motivating desired behaviors and allowing gamers to directly compare their personal performance with that of other players. This
means that all players are able to monitor and compare their leader board rankings against their peers'. It is natural that social
comparison via leader boards tends to yield either positive or negative emotional responses, depending on whether it is a downward
or upward comparison. We believe that social comparison can explicitly promote social connectivity and a sense of relatedness
amongst students. In addition, social connection may not occur only amongst students but also between teachers and parents (da
Rocha Seixas, Gomes, & de Melo Filho, 2016), between students and game-based elements (Lopez & Tucker, 2019), between students
and learning materials or content (Wu, 2018) and between learners and instructors (Toda, do Carmo, da Silva, Bittencourt, & Isotani,
2019).

4.5.4. Challenges and barriers of gamification

Notwithstanding the inherent impact of gamification in education sectors, some apparent limitations found in some of the studies
were also addressed. The major reason that gamified learning was ineffective was related to the use of game-based elements, in-
structional design, and technical issues (Table 8). This finding implies that the simple use of extrinsic motivators, such as virtual
trophies or achievement points, does not always guarantee that students will care or be more engaged. A study of Kyewski and
Kramer (2018) reported that badges did not successfully increase intrinsic motivation during the instructional period. Other studies
claimed that the use of points, badges, levels and leader boards failed to promote students' sense of community and did not sig-
nificantly increase students’ competence, their need for satisfaction and intrinsic motivation (Ding et al., 2017; Mekler et al., 2017).
These findings also suggest that gamification is not always appropriate for all types of content. On that note, it is important for
instructional designers to acquire an empirically grounded understanding of the content, learning goals and outcomes, when
weighing up each option of gamification.
Moreover, contrary to the widespread belief that extrinsic reward such as points and badges, are an effective way of enhancing
students' motivation. However, some contemporary studies have revealed that the predominance of incentive systems can also
undermine students' intrinsic motivation to voluntarily engage in the gamified learning for its inherent pleasure and satisfaction
(Derfler-Rozin & Pitesa, 2020; Eyupoglu & Nietfeld, 2019; Facey-Shaw, Specht, van Rosmalen, & Bartley-Bryan, 2020). In considering
the over-justification effect that external rewards can trigger on students’ intrinsic motivation, much will depend on the role of
instructors and educators to select game dynamics that focus on meaningful learning and that which matches the specific learning
goals and content of the curriculum. Moreover, the convergence of evidence from these scholarly efforts draws parallels with SDT, in
that learning tasks should be designed with optimal challenges and that appropriate game elements should be selected based on the
study objectives (Denisova et al., 2020; Ryan & Rigby, 2020).
Another crucial aspect of the gamification research agenda raised by Schöbel et al. (2020) is the scarcity of instructional and
motivational design theories to support the thresholds of gamification, since most of the studies focused on motivational affordances
that invoke gameful experiences, desirable for learning. From a theoretical and comparative perspective, these design theories re-
present the emergent interest in elucidating gamification concepts and strategies aimed at readdressing the needs of users (Toda,
Valle, & Isotani, 2018).
Gamification has been drawing increasing levels of attention with the uptrend of employing game technologies to enhance online
user engagement. They are essentially tailored to create compelling socially driven user experiences that impress upon ardent gamers.
The motivational aspect of these game mechanics adds on a social dimension upon game savvy enthusiasts who gamify in groups.
These gamers tend to gain beneficial effects from their social interactions.
On the contrary, there is a neurological explanation for compulsive gaming. It is mainly due to the release of the neurotransmitter
dopamine in the brain which forges an emotional connection associated with pleasure-reward sensations akin to a gratifying sti-
mulus. As gaming advocates propagate the educational value of gamified learning, the question of whether the underlying elements
of games are truly powerful motivators and learning tools or are they merely pandering to students’ interests.

12
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

Additionally, deep engagement in online gaming derived from compulsive online game fixations are known to have adverse
effects on learning. Compulsive online gaming is increasingly being recognised for its high risk behaviours which often lead to
gaming addiction. What started off as a playful escapism has changed the tone of gamified learning, causing a shift in the popularity
of this e-learning phenomena. Consequently, diagnosed addictions are appearing to enlist internet gaming disorder as a condition that
warrants further study.

4.6. Discussion and recommendations for future work

The findings of this study present an overview of empirical research literature on gamification studies in the context of education
and learning. This study contributes to addressing the aforementioned research gaps, and provides practical insights and direction for
future research on gamification based on the prevalent themes. The review indicates that gaming technologies have a direct influence
on learning and the potential of modernising the landscape of education in this new digital era. The key areas of research are tourism
education (Adukaite et al., 2017), multimedia content production (Barata et al., 2017), accounting, finance, taxation, theory and
practice (Buckley & Doyle, 2017) and information and communication technology (Çakıroglu et al., 2017). Online graduate courses
are also emerging in prominence (Ding et al., 2017). Therefore, further studies are greatly needed to gamify students’ learning
activities and explore the effects of gamified concepts across course subjects.
The analysis in this study revealed the emergence of three major positive themes (engagement and motivation, academic
achievement, and interaction and socialisation) as gainful effects of gamification research. This study confirmed that the use of game-
based elements could increase students' motivation and engagement, enhance academic performance, promote interaction and so-
cialisation, and provide opportunities to develop autonomous learning skills. The study's general findings suggest that gamification
may be effective in facilitating and enhancing learning performance, motivation, engagement and socialisation amongst learners. By
and large, our findings depict a positive leaning of the effectiveness of gamification. Games are inherently amusing and fun for
players, and our findings indicate that the use of game-based elements such as badges, points, trophies, leader boards, avatars and
virtual gifts not only promote students' extrinsic motivation but also increases their intrinsic value for learning. An intrinsically
motivated student is more likely to engage in depth with the materials and learning process. The more they engage, the greater their
intrinsic motivation. For these reasons, it is recommended that the results of this study, which serve as a reference point against an
established baseline, are set out in the form of comparative best practices to help guide the establishment of innovative strategies to
inform future gamification research. As for reports of the ineffectiveness of gamification, we suggest that it is important for an
instructor to fully understand the target group of the gamified system.
We realise that grading is the only practical and reliable method of evaluating and assessing a student's academic performance. As
digital technology becomes more affordable and pervasive in classrooms, gamifying lessons will become easier and more robust. The
ways that students engage with course material, with teachers and with each other are no longer limited to desks, chalkboards, raised
hands and classrooms. With this innovative concept, students could learn to associate learning and assessment with curiosity and joy
instead of fear.
Most of the gamification studies were based on SDT (Aldemir et al., 2018; Ding et al., 2018, 2017; Kuo & Chuang, 2016; Mekler
et al., 2017; Tsay et at., 2018). Kuo and Chuang (2016) described the positive effects of gamification in an online context on the
promotion of academic dissemination. In addition, the most frequently used keywords in the reviewed articles were ‘motivation’ and
‘engagement’. This implies that motivation and engagement were the main focus of research within this framework. By and large, this
study serves as a technology prognosis, providing a useful exploration of future changes in gamification while considering the reforms
needed to develop technology-assisted gamification activities. Attempts to further explore the development of gamification tech-
nology have fostered a broad debate among subject experts, researchers and practitioners. Nonetheless, Cardador, Northcraft, and
Whicker (2017) stated that relatively little theoretical research has been done to examine the effectiveness of work gamification in
promoting the benefits of work effectiveness.
However, most articles failed to provide a theoretical explanation of the link between gamification and motivational con-
sequences or other positive parts and engagement, learning performance, self-efficacy and social collaboration. A review of gami-
fication research in the academic field reveals that most studies have no theoretical principles. In line with this, previous studies have
addressed the current lack of theory in gamified instructional design and stated that further work must be conducted to discuss the
theoretical foundations of gamification in education (Landers et al., 2015).
Most studies have focused mainly on SDT, flow theory, and goal-setting theory, but concur that other theories should be explored.
Likewise, only a few gamification design frameworks have been developed, such as the theory-driven gamification design model
(goal, access, feedback, challenge and collaboration) developed by Huang and Hew (2018). To fill these research gaps, the re-
commendation of this study is to further develop the theoretical basis for gamification design in teaching and learning.
In terms of the methods used, we found only a single article in which the data was collected in a longitudinal study (Barata et al.,
2017). Most other studies examined the effects of games during a short intervention period (within a few weeks or months). Whilst
longitudinal research is data-intensive and involves methodological challenges, we believe that research studies that go beyond short-
term interventions are needed to better understand how the new generation of learners accept, use or misuse gamification concepts in
learning and instruction. Based on this finding, we recommend that future researchers conduct longitudinal studies to examine the
effects of gamification across timescales and spaces.
Similarly, gamification and game-based learning have rarely been considered in a single study. Therefore, further comparative
research should be performed on the two topical concepts of gamification and game-based learning. This study differentiates between
gamification and game-based learning, as the two terms are often misunderstood as interchangeable. It also recommends further

13
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

research on gamified LMS, an open-source e-learning platform that incorporates game-based elements like points, badges and leader
boards. Gamifying the LMS with built-in features and new plugins offers enormous potential for further study, particularly for
improvement in digital game-based learning within their collaborative gaming environment. Online quizzes are widely used,
especially in formative assessment. In addition, quizzes play a pivotal role in enhancing learning and retention and are regarded as a
central feature of effective teaching and learning. Furthermore, as most commercial games lack customised features, researchers may
prefer to develop their games in a way that is consistent with their research goals.
Likewise, as most studies of gamification instruction are used at the higher education level, further investigation of gamification at
the primary or secondary school level is highly recommended. In terms of game mechanics, this study shows that gamified learning
and instruction studies have mostly implemented badges, points, leader-boards, levels, progress bars, virtual goods and trophies. This
finding corroborates with Hamari, Koivisto and Sarsa's (2014) and stipulates that badges are a widely used, crucial technique for
gamification because of the frequently received positive feedback which gives people the sense that they are in line with social norms
and standards. The players' characteristics and type of badge determine the results of the gamification process, so effectual badge
selection is important. This fosters a strong social connectivity among students via competition and comparison of points including
scores on the leader boards. Further research is highly recommended to apply various types of game principles in gamified learning
and instruction, such as avatars, quests, content unlocking, combat and boss fights.
By the same token, students' motivation is an important factor in the success of online learning. In like manner, most of the
educational gamified studies discussed in this study used online systems. We further note the use of gamified concept in low-tech
information settings with or without the use of technological devices. In line with this, Barata, Gama, Fonseca, and Gonçalves (2013)
noted that ‘a conventional learning experience can be designed as a game, without using technology, to engage students and make
classes more fun and interesting’ (p. 2). Wood and Reiners (2015) also stressed that ‘it is possible to incorporate gamification into
processes without technology support, this is proven challenging to achieve in practice’ (p. 3043). Thus, in addition to researching
technology-mediated gamification, further empirical studies should address the research gaps in non-digital gamification settings.
Paper and pens or whiteboards can be used as an alternative to a digital gamified platform. For instance, the instructor may close
off part of the whiteboard to write down team names and assign points throughout the lesson. The leader boards can also be drawn
manually on paper or whiteboards and posted on the classroom wall or in front of the class. Çakıroglu et al. (2017) awarded real gifts
to students with high performance levels as recorded on the leader board. We believe that this offers an alternative strategy for
further implementing gamified learning in a low-tech information setting. Above all, in an area in which the Internet and techno-
logical infrastructure are inadequate, real gifts or badges could be awarded to motivate and engage students’ learning. In this study,
we conclude that gamification is not about technology or a digital platform but rather about the design and development of in-
novative instruction which incorporates game elements into activities. Gamification is a way to reward hard work, motivate action,
overcome challenges and make people enjoy activities like they enjoy playing games.
We recommend that future researchers study more critically and in depth how a gamified system could be applied in a low-tech
information environment – not just confined to a high-tech environment. A low-tech information environment is one with relatively
unsophisticated technological development or equipment. We encourage researchers and instructors strongly interested in gamifying
their class, not to wait until the technology becomes available. The application of game mechanics to motivate and engage students
can be arranged anywhere, in any grade and subject, regardless of the availability of digital devices. Further studies are strongly
recommended to implement such innovative instruction in a low-tech information environment. Thus, people around the world, and
especially students in rural areas, may also experience learning with innovative pedagogical concepts. In addition, this study may also
help support the UNESCO program, ‘Education for All’, encourage innovative instruction, and help improve the educational quality
and learning outcomes. We believe that the results of this study will provide valuable insights for advancing gamification research,
and to be used as a source of reference for future research in education.

4.6.1. Limitation

Our review has several limitations. The reviewed articles published in journals which are not included in the Web of Science were
not considered in this analysis, so only 46 articles were analysed. As the number of publications is still considered small, we end this
study by suggesting points of departure for continued empirical investigations of gamified practices from various database searches,
not limited to the Web of Science database. We also recommend that future researchers analyse not only journal articles but also book
chapters, conference proceedings, review articles, conceptual papers and other types of publications to provide a more in-depth
reporting of information from various credible sources. The review also focused on studies published from 2016 to the middle of
2019. A further review is recommended to analyse more papers in the most recent 10 years of publication. Another acknowledged
limitation is the need to report the various data analysis procedures used in each publication (e.g., t-test, one-way analysis of
variance, factor analysis, regression analysis, structural equation modelling, Wilcoxon test, Friedman test, Mann–Whitney U test, chi-
square test and Kruskal Wallis test).
Another limitation is the lack of adequate scientific research centred on the longitudinal evaluation as well as the perceptions of
gamified learning. Due to the lack of longitudinal studies that systematically analyses the impact of gamification on student learning,
we further recommend that future studies be conducted beyond short-term interventions to create quality research output that can
appraise the efficacy of gamified interventions on students learning. Finally, we recommend that a further study include a meta-
analysis, particularly to explore students’ learning outcomes (learning achievement and motivation and/or engagement) or other
variables (gender, age, levels of education, and rural vs. urban schools).

14
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

4.6.2. Conclusions

Gamification is an uprising trend that applies gaming mechanics as a driver to motivate, engage and enhance the user experience.
It is a rapidly growing phenomenon that has shown to provide engaging and compelling solutions in the educational and learning
context. An initial framework is based on foundational psychological theories, including SDT and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
This paper presents a systematic literature review to identify high-quality empirical studies in the area of gamification in the edu-
cational field over the 4-year period from 2016 to mid-2019. This paper has focused on methodological approaches adopted in
research, the underlying theoretical models, gamification platforms, the most frequently used trending searches, the participants'
preferences and the most common game elements used in education. The learning outcomes and impact categories identified were
students’ engagement and motivation, academic achievement and social connectivity.
The traditional chalk and talk method of classroom delivery seems increasingly old-fashioned. In current times, students’ learning
spaces have gone beyond the typical brick and mortar classroom. In the digital era, forging global connections is as easy as clicking a
button or using easy voice commands, enabling people to gain quick access to any type of information from various digital sources.
The continuous advancement of technology will require students to increase their learning. Therefore, teachers or instructors should
be trained in a variety of contemporary methods and instructional pedagogies, not limited to gamification, such as flipped classroom,
blended learning, adaptive learning, inquiry-based learning and more; the most recent trends in digitalisation (augmented and virtual
reality, artificial intelligence and big data, emotion sensors, learning analytics, massive open online courses, smart desks). In this way,
teachers could implement the right instruction and technology at the right time and in the right place. In addition, the im-
plementation of multiple digital pedagogies in a single study or interdisciplinary approach is also necessary to extend the effects of
these studies (e.g., combining gamification with the flipped classroom approach or inquiry-based learning). Meanwhile, we believe
that a good teaching strategy is designed not to make things difficult, but rather to make students feel comfortable and ensure that
they experience fun and enthusiasm while learning. The best method of teaching is one that motivates and engages students in
learning, and in this review study, gamification instruction was shown to achieve these positive outcomes.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Zamzami Zainuddin: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Samuel Kai Wah Chu: Data curation, Investigation, Validation, Resources,
Writing - review & editing. Muhammad Shujahat: Data curation, Investigation, Validation, Resources, Writing - review & editing.
Corinne Jacqueline Perera: Data curation, Investigation, Validation, Resources, Writing - review & editing.

Acknowledgments

This study is a part of my doctoral thesis work at the Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong (HKU), Hong Kong. I
would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisors, Dr. Samuel Kai Wah Chu and Dr. Gary Wong. I also wish to express my
sincere thanks to all the co-authors who have contributed to this work.

Appendix. Literature summary of gamification implementation

No References Study purposes n Game elements Key findings Prevalent themes

1 Adukaite et al. To study the extent to which six

(2017) determined predictors (perceptions
218
about playfulness, curriculum fit,
learning opportunities, challenge,
self-efficacy and computer anxiety)
influence the advocacy to accept a
gamified application by South
African tourism teachers
2 Albuquerque
et al. (2017)
To investigate whether gender
stereotype threat in online gami-
127
fied educational scenarios influ-
ences anxiety and performance
Badges, points, progress bars,
leader boards and a storyline with
• The gamification application
was perceived as enjoyable,
Motivation and
engagement
visuals fun and stimulating; teachers
were willing to advocate for
its adoption for tourism edu-
cation
• A significant direct relation-
ship was found between play-
fulness and behavioural in-
tention to use information
technology and digital games.
• Perceived enjoyment was
identified as a key determi-
nant.
Points, badges, ranking, levels and
avatars
• Men and women have distinct Learning perfor-
levels of anxiety when facing mance
stereotype threat
• Differences in anxiety be-
tween control and experi-
mental groups showed that
changes in anxiety were sig-
nificant in these groups

15
Z. Zainuddin, et al.
3 Aldemir et al.
(2018)
To identify students' perceptions of 118
game-based elements used in a
gamified teacher education course
4 Aparicio et al.
(2019)
To propose a theoretical frame-
work to identify the determinants
215
of successful MOOCs and measure
these factors empirically in a real
MOOC context
5 Barata et al.
(2017)
To perform a long-term study and
identify how different students
141
played and engaged in a gamified
instructional course
6 Baydas and
Cicek (2019)
To identify the factors that may
affect the gamification process in
91
undergraduate education
7 Bouchrika
et al. (2019)
To investigate how the gamifica-
tion concept can affect student
863
learning engagement and interac-
tivity level with e-learning tech-
nologies and at the same time
support sustained learning
8 Buckley and
Doyle (2017)
To identify how an individual's
learning styles influence the ex-
158
perience of gamification
9 Çakıroglu
et al. (2017)
To reveal the effect of gamified
instructional process to student
37
engagement and the relationship
between engagement and aca-
demic performances in a real
classroom
10 Chang and
Wei (2016)
To explore and identify engaging
gamification mechanics for MOOC
5020
learners
Challenges, narrative, leader
board, rewards, badges, teams,
win-state, points and constraints
Badges, points, levels and certifi-
cates
Points, levels, leader boards,
badges and avatars
Badges/medals, leader boards or
rankings, grades and points
Scores, badges and leader boards
Achievements, avatars, badges,
boss fights, collection, combat,
content unlocking, gifting, leader
boards, levels, points, quests, social
graphs, teams and virtual goods
A small real gift, leader boards and
points
Virtual goods, redeemable points,
team leader boards, ‘Where's
Wally’ game, trophies, badges, peer
16
Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326
(performance was equal for
all groups)
• Positive effects of narrative
imagination components as-
Motivation and
engagement, in-
sume a unique role in devel- teraction and so-
oping successful gamified cialisation
learning activity in the class-
room.
• The learners imagine that
they involved in a virtual ac-
tivity like in a real-life situa-
tion, and they associate
themselves with the role or
story idea in the narrative
• Gamification proved to play a
crucial role in the success of
Engagement, mo-
tivation, learning
MOOCs performance and
interactive
learning
• Different student types could
be identified in gamified
Motivation and
engagement
course, each representing a
different performance level
and approach to the course
• The achievers, the under-
achievers, the disheartened
students, the late awakeners,
the regular students and the
half-hearted students. Both
achievers and regular stu-
dents were considered the
best-performing students
• Most of the students were en-
tertained by this gamification
Engagement, mo-
tivation, interac-
learning process and were so- tion and sociali-
cially engaged with each sation
other
• The students focused on
earning badges, gaining a
place on the leader board or
just being successful rather
than engaging in learning the
content in depth during the
gamification process
• The badges, medals and
leader boards decreased the
efficiency of feedback given
by the researcher after each
question, and the students
mostly focused on their scores
• Gamification can be recog-
nised as a worthy means to
Interactive
learning and
attract learners for the uptake learning engage-
of educational systems and to ment
enhance social engagement
• Awerenumber of relationships
found between learning
Motivation and
engagement, aca-
styles and personality traits, demic perfor-
as well as a relationship with mance
learning performance and
participation
• Using a combination of ele-
ments had a fairly positive
Motivation and
engagement, aca-
motivational impact on en- demic perfor-
gagement. mance
• The gamification elements
had an indirect effect on aca-
demic achievement due to
their positive effects on en-
gagement in the classroom
• Virtual goods were the most
engaging gamification me-
Motivation and
engagement, aca-
chanic to reinforce learner's demic
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

grading, peer emoticon feedback, good performance and parti- performance, in-
memory-game interactions, check cipation. teraction and so-
points and skill points • Leader boards also motivated
students' social engagement
cialisation

11 Davis et al.
(2018)
To investigate how college stu-
dents experience learning in a ga-
129 Experience points, leader boards,
level-ups and badges
• Non-gamers expressed some-
what less motivation to do
Learning achieve-
ment and engage-
mified informatics course well in the course than fre- ment
quent gamers
• There were virtually no dif-
ferences between male and
female students' perceptions
of gamification
12 da Rocha
Seixas et al.
To assess the effectiveness of ga-
mification platforms used as an
61 Badges • The more badges received by
students, the more engaged
Motivation and
engagement, aca-
(2016) approach to engage elementary they were with the course demic perfor-
school students' learning mance, interac-
tion and
socialisation
13 De-Marcos
et al. (2016)
To examine and compare students' 379
learning performance between four
Challenges, levels, points, narra-
tive, trophies, badges, challenges
• Combining gamification and
social approaches produces
Academic perfor-
mance
instructional pedagogies; educa- and leader boards better outcomes in terms of
tional game, social networking ap- learning performance across
proach, gamification and social the various evaluation items
gamification considered in this study
14 Ding at al.
(2018)
To examine the influence of the
gamification approach on student
14 Badges, experience points, leader
boards, progress bar, reactions and
• The badges, leader board,
progress bar and the reactions
Motivation and
engagement, in-
engagement in online discussions awards appeared to have many direct teraction and so-
and indirect effects on stu- cialisation
dents' behavioural, cognitive
and emotional engagement
• Workload/two large projects/
low engagement in online
discussions
15 Ding et al.
(2017)
To investigate the impact of spe-
cific game elements implemented
22 Badges, experience points, levels,
progress bar, leader- boards and a
• Gamified learning system had
positive effects on student
Motivation and
engagement, in-
in gEchoLu (a gamified online dis- thumbs-ups system behavioural engagement, teraction and so-
cussion tool) on students' learning emotional engagement and cialisation
motivation and engagement in on- cognitive engagement
line discussions • Badges, thumbs-ups, progress
bars and avatars in the plat-
form promoted student en-
gagement in online discus-
sions
• Virtual gifts had no associa-
tion with grades and were
considered to have no value
• The badge system was one of
the least favourite game ele-
ments
16 Ding (2019) To promote student engagement in 70
online discussions
Levels, experience points, badges
and leader boards
• The gamification approach
had a positive influence on
Engagement, mo-
tivation, perfor-
student learning engagement. mance and social
• More students in the non-ga-
mified group than in the ga-
interaction

mified group reported that the

platform was user-friendly
• Failed to promote students'
sense of community
17 Doumanis,
Economou,
To report the results of an experi- 48
ment intended to assess the effects
Avatars and points • Multimodal CVE enhances
student learning performance
Collaborative in-
teraction, motiva-
Sim, and of multimodal real-time interaction and aspects of subjective ex- tion and engage-
Porter (2019) on user experience and learning of perience when compared to ment
gamified educational tasks com- non-multimodal control
pleted in collaborative virtual en-
vironments (CVE)
18 Garcia-
Sanjuan et al.
This study presents Quizbot, a col- 80
laborative gamified quiz applica-
Leaving points, badges and leader
boards out of the design and in-
• Quizbot was perceived by
children as generally enga-
Social collabora-
tion, motivation,
(2018) tion to practice different subjects stead focusing on other compo- ging, with fun being rated enjoyment and
nents to support the aforemen- between ‘really good’ and fun
tioned dynamics (the emergent ‘brilliant’ on average
behaviour that arises from game-
play) such as relationships, pro-
gression and emotions
19 Ge (2018) 180 Points and prize rewards

17
Z. Zainuddin, et al.
To explore the effects of three
reward strategies on adult e-lear-
ners’ learning performance in a
gamified teaching process
20 Göksün and To examine the reflections of ga-
Gürsoy (2019) mification activities used as a for-
97
mative assessment tool based on
academic achievement and student
engagement in learning environ-
ments.
21 Groening and To investigate the motivational
Binnewies benefits of digital achievements as
65
(2019) a game design element in gamifi-
cation with a focus on performance
and motivation
22 Hassan et al.
(2019)
To improve students' performance, 175
motivation and course-completion
rates using personalised gamifica-
tion elements based on the learning
styles of students
23 Huang and
Hew (2018)
To implement a theory-driven ga- 80
mification model in higher-educa-
tion flipped courses and motivate
students to participate in more out-
of-class activities without compro-
mising quality of work
24 Huang et al.
(2019)
To propose a theory-driven GAFCC 96
framework to design a gamified
flipped course and to support stu-
dents' behavioural and cognitive
engagement
25 Ioannou
(2019)
To present empirical outcomes
from the application of the model
86
of gameful design for learning in
the socio-emotional education
classroom, aiming to engage lear-
ners in perspective-taking and col-
laboration
26 Jagušt et al.
(2018)
To present the results of an em-
pirical study of three types of ga-
54
mified learning activities –
Levels, ranking, points, reports
(leader boards),
Badges and trophies
Levels, points, leader boards, goals,
badges and feedback
Badges, points, leader boards and
challenge task levels
Badges (trophies), points, levels
and leader boards
Points and feedbacks
Leader boards, points, badges and
narratives
18
Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326
• The forfeit-or-prize reward
pattern and the prize-only re-
Learning perfor-
mance, learning
ward pattern could elicit a motivation,
better learning outcome on e- learning anxiety
learners than the no-prize-no-
forfeit pattern
• The forfeit-or-prize pattern
could produce better knowl-
edge retention for e-learners
• Kahoot and Quizizz gamifica- Academic
tion applications presented achievement,
positive views on learning learning engage-
motivation and engagement ment and motiva-
and on academic performance tion
• Achievements have the po-
tential to enhance perfor-
Learning achieve-
ment and motiva-
mance; this enhancement tion
strengthens over time
• Achievements satisfy specific
needs better than conven-
tional goal-setting, such as the
need for competence,
autonomy or cognitive closure
• Adaptive gamification ele-
ments and activities selected
Course comple-
tion, interaction
according to the learning di- and motivation
mensions of learners could
significantly increase motiva-
tion, course completion, in-
terest and interaction in the E-
learning course
• Gamification design based on
the goal-access-feedback-
Learning perfor-
mance, motiva-
challenge-collaboration tion and engage-
(GAFCC) model successfully ment
motivated learners to com-
plete significantly more out-
of-class activities than in non-
gamified instructional ap-
proach.
• The GAFCC model motivated
learners to produce higher-
quality out-of-class activity
artefacts than the non-gami-
fied condition
• Students in the gamified
flipped-learning class had po-
Behavioural and
cognitive engage-
sitive motivation to complete ment
pre-class and post-class activ-
ities on time
• Students presented higher-
quality artefacts.
• Students in the gamified
flipped-learning group had
better scores on post-course
test than those in the non-
gamified flipped-learning
group
• Positive behavioural and cog-
nitive engagement were found
in the gamified flipped-
learning class
• A model of gameful design for
learning can be realised with
Social interaction
and collabora-
the interaction of tabletop tion, group per-
technology, pedagogy and formance and
gamification learning engage-
• The application of this model
enabled students to engage in
ment
collaborative learning
• Contributed to the sustain-
ment and improvement of the
Learning perfor-
mance,
performance levels of primary
Z. Zainuddin, et al.
competitive, collaborative and
adaptive – in lower primary
mathematics classes
27 Jo et al.
(2018)
To analyse the effectiveness of
game-based elements in the online
30
lecture system of flipped-learning
instruction as a means to enhance
participation and engagement in
online preparation before at-
tending class
28 Jurgelaitis
et al. (2019)
To examine the impact of gamifi-
cation in a course for undergrad-
137
uate computer science students
29 Kuo and
Chuang
To use gamification in an online
context for academic promotion
73
(2016) and dissemination
30 Kyewski and
Kramer
To test whether badges, which
could be received for successful
151
(2018) task performance and specific ac-
tivities within an e-learning course
in a higher-education setting, had a
positive effect on students' learning
motivation and performance
31 Landers and
Armstrong
To explore the effects of TETEM
(the Technology-Enhanced
262
(2017) Training Effectiveness Model) on
gamification and to describe an-
ticipated differences in valence to
technology-enhanced training
32 Lopez and
Tucker (2019)
To explore how individuals with
different player types perceive and
30
interact with gamified applications
33 Lo and Hew
(2018)
To assess students' mathematics
achievement and cognitive en-
76
gagement under three different in-
structional approaches: traditional
learning, flipped learning with ga-
mification and an online indepen-
dent study with gamification in-
struction
Scores, levels, leader boards and
badges
Leader boards, badges, virtual cur-
rency, coins, content locking and
trading
Trophies, badges, collectable cards,
leader- boards, levels, gifting and
charity, virtual goods, points and
challenges
Badges
Points and leader boards
Points, content unlocking and
avatar
Digital points, early-bird badges,
task completion badges, levels with
a progress bar and a leader board
19
Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326
school students in digital engagement and
mathematics lessons motivation
• The level of student perfor-
mance can be greatly en-
hanced via the integration
and careful combination of
various game elements, in-
cluding not only leader boards
and badges, but also elements
such as narratives and adap-
tive mechanisms based on in-
dividual performance
• The degree of preparation
participation in flipped-class
Academic
achievement and
instruction with game com- motivation
pared with the conventional
flipped-class learning
• Game-based elements added
to the online lecture system
successfully increased stu-
dents' motivation for a
flipped-classroom's online
preparation
• Students' grades increased
significantly
Learning perfor-
mance, engage-
• Advanced students' intrinsic
motivation and learning
ment and motiva-
tion
• Gamification has the potential
to attract, motivate, engage
Motivation and
engagement aca-
and retain users demic perfor-
mance
• Badges have less impact on
students' motivation and per-
Motivation and
engagement, aca-
formance than is commonly demic perfor-
assumed mance
• Students' intrinsic motivation
decreased over time
• Participants had greater va-
lence for gamified instruction
Academic perfor-
mance
versus traditional training
based on lecture and
PowerPoint
• Individuals with poor atti-
tudes toward game-based
learning and limited experi-
ence with video games had
poorer valence for gamified
instruction than for lecture
and PowerPoint instruction.
• Player type correlates with
individuals' perception of
An individual's
player type, per-
game elements and perfor- formance, moti-
mance in the gamified appli- vation and social
cation interaction
• Participants who interacted
with the gamified application
did better than those in the
non-gamified application
• Students in flipped-class in-
struction performed signifi-
Motivation, peer
interactions, cog-
cantly better in terms of test nitive engage-
scores than those in the tra- ment and aca-
ditional and online indepen- demic perfor-
dent study groups mance
• Flipped instruction with ga-
mified concept favourably
advanced students' cognitive
engagement
• Peer interactions in the
flipped classroom were cru-
cial to promoting students'
mathematics performance and
cognitive engagement
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

34 Mekler et al.
(2017)
To review and discuss gaps in pre- 273
vious research via systematic eva-
Points, levels and leader boards • Points, levels and leader
boards significantly increased
Motivation and
academic perfor-
luation of the impact of individual the number of tags generated mance
game design elements on both user in the image annotation task
motivation and behaviour relative to the plain condition
• Points, levels and leader
boards did not significantly
increase competence need sa-
tisfaction compared to the
plain condition
35 Ortiz-Rojas
et al. (2019)
To engage students in STEM do-
mains and enhance their learning
89 Levels, badges, points and leader
boards
• Gamifying a course using
leader boards led to signifi-
Learning perfor-
mance, motiva-
performance with gamification in- cantly better learning perfor- tion, self-efficacy
struction mance but did not affect and engagement
either students' intrinsic mo-
tivation, self-efficacy or en-
gagement
• Increased learning perfor-
mance but apparently without
the mediating effect of in-
trinsic motivation, self-effi-
cacy or engagement or the
interaction effect of previous
gaming experience as covari-
ables
36 Özdener
(2018)
To reveal the effects of applying
game-based elements in courses
63 Achievements, badges, gifting,
leader boards and points
• Academic performance and
motivation in gamified in-
Motivation and
engagement, aca-
that use a Wiki environment on the struction were better com- demic achieve-
participation rates of undergrad- pared to non-gamified in- ment, interaction
uate students in Wiki-based course struction and socialisation
activities and on students' aca-
demic performance
• There was greater amount of
participation in Wiki activities
when gamification elements
were included
37 Rachels and
Rockinson-
To determine the effectiveness of a 187
mobile gamification application for
Points and achievement levels • No significant statistical dif-
ference in self-efficacy and
Achievement and
student academic
Szapkiw Spanish instruction in comparison learning achievement be- self-efficacy
(2018) to face-to-face foreign language tween a gamification class via
instruction Duolingo and a traditional
face-to-face learning environ-
ment.
38 Sánchez-
Martín et al.
To present a gamification experi-
ence within prospective primary
36 Leader boards and points • A correlation was evident be-
tween the participation level
Motivation and
engagement, aca-
(2017) teachers in a general science class- in the game and the academic demic perfor-
room marks that the students obtain mance interaction
• Those who were involved in
the game usually achieved
and socialisation

better academic performance

39 Sousa-Vieira
et al. (2016)
To report a design, implementation 160
and use of a software platform
(SocialWire) for increasing lear-
ners' motivation and learning per-
formance
40 Toda et al.
(2019)
To propose a solution to support
instructors and teachers to plan
40
and expand gamification concepts
with social network features in
learning environments
41 Tsay et al.
(2018)
To assess the use of gamification to 136
facilitate a student-centred
learning environment within an
undergraduate Year 2 Personal and
Professional Development course
42 van Roy and
Zaman (2018)
To investigate gamification's un-
derlying motivational processes
40
from a self-determination theory
perspective, empirically evaluated
subtle motivational shifts over time
and considered the potential
Points, ranking and badges
Points, levels, leader boards (repu-
tation), achievement progress, tro-
phies (badges)
Badges and leader boards
Podium-like leader boards, points
and badges
• Gamification elements were
effective in enhancing the
Learning perfor-
mance and moti-
students' motivation, learning vation
experience and performance
• The idea of gamification con-
cepts within social networks
Motivation, en-
gagement, con-
could be practiced by instruc- nections and so-
tors to improve the students' cial interaction
learning experiences
• Student performance was sig- Motivation and
nificantly higher amongst engagement, aca-
those who participated in the demic perfor-
gamified system than in those mance interaction
who engaged in non-gamified and socialisation
instruction
• Behavioural engagement in
online learning activities
showed a positive relationship
with course performance
• No evidence was found for a Motivation
novelty effect in which gami-
fication first holds positive
effects, only to diminish over
time as the newness of the
game elements wears off

20
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

individual differences in motiva-

tional values of gamification
43 Wu (2018) To develop a productive mobile
learning (m-learning) atmosphere
228
that enables focused immersion
students to learn, enhancing their
gratification, decreasing their cog-
nitive load and advancing their
learning performance
44 Yildirim
(2017)
To determine the effects of gami-
fied instruction on students'
97
learning performance and their at-
titudes toward the lesson
45 Zainuddin
(2018)
To investigate students' learning
performance and perceived moti-
56
vation in a gamified flipped class-
room and a non-gamified flipped
classroom
46 Zatarain
Cabada et al.
To evaluate a technology accep-
tance model used in gamified
24
(2018) learning instruction and to assess
the impact of gamification on stu-
dent's behaviour and academic
performance
Points, levels and leader-boards
Points, badges, levels, points and
leader boards
Points, badges, leader boards and
certificates of achievement
Points, trophies and ranking scores
• The gamification pedagogy of
m-learning could motivate
Learning perfor-
mance, autono-
students to learn by using mous motivation,
video game design and game engagement and
elements: game mechanics collaborative in-
and game dynamics teraction
• The gamification pedagogy
could stimulate students to
focus on learning scenarios
with high media richness and
could enable students to in-
teract with the course mate-
rial during learning
• Gamification-based teaching
practices had a positive im-
Academic perfor-
mance
pact on students' achievement
and their attitudes toward the
lessons
• Students were positive about
perceived competence,
Motivation and
engagement, aca-
autonomy and relatedness demic perfor-
and better performance and mance interaction
were able to achieve good and socialisation
results in tests
• The gamified flipped-class
setting fostered better moti-
vation and engagement
• Perceived ease of use and
perceived enjoyment had a
Motivation, en-
gagement and
positive effect on the students' academic perfor-
acceptance of the system mance
• Perceived usefulness had a
positive impact on students'
attitude, but not on their in-
tention to use the gamified
system
• Post-test scores of the students
in the gamified group were
better than that of a non-ga-
mified group

References

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.
Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational
Research Review, 20, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002.
Albuquerque, J., Bittencourt, I. I., Coelho, J. A., & Silva, A. P. (2017). Does gender stereotype threat in gamified educational environments cause anxiety? An
experimental study. Computers & Education, 115, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.005.
Aldemir, T., Celik, B., & Kaplan, G. (2018). A qualitative investigation of student perceptions of game elements in a gamified course. Computers in Human Behavior, 78,
235–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.001.
Clarivate Analytics (2017). Web of science core collection. http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience.
Aparicio, M., Oliveira, T., Bacao, F., & Painho, M. (2019). Gamification: A key determinant of massive open online course (MOOC) success. Information & Management,
56(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.06.003.
Barata, G., Gama, S., Fonseca, M. J., & Gonçalves, D. (2013, October). Improving student creativity with gamification and virtual worlds. Proceedings of the first
international conference on gameful design, research, and applications. Gamification ’13 (pp. 95–98). Stratford, ON, Canada: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2583008.2583023.
Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2017). Studying student differentiation in gamified education: A long-term study. Computers in Human Behavior, 71,
550–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.049.
Baydas, O., & Cicek, M. (2019). The examination of the gamification process in undergraduate education: A scale development study. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 28(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1580609.
Bereczki, E. O., & Karpati, A. (2018). Teachers' beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational Research
Review, 23, 25–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.003.
Bouchrika, I., Harrati, N., Wanick, V., & Wills, G. (2019). Exploring the impact of gamification on student engagement and involvement with e-learning systems.
Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1623267.
Bozkurt, A., Akgun-Ozbek, E., Yilmazel, S., Erdogdu, E., Ucar, H., Guler, E., & Dincer, G. D. (2015). Trends in distance education research: A content analysis of
journals 2009-2013. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(1), 330–363. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.1953.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2017). Individualising gamification: An investigation of the impact of learning styles and personality traits on the efficacy of gamification
using aprediction market. Computers & Education, 106, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.009.

21
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

Buil, I., Catalán, S., & Martínez, E. (2020). Understanding applicants' reactions to gamified recruitment. Journal of Business Research, 110, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.041.
Çakıroglu, U., Başıbuyuk, B., Guler, M., Atabay, M., & Memiş, B. Y. (2017). Gamifying an ICT course: Influences on engagement and academic performance. Computers
in Human Behavior, 69, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.018.
Cardador, M. T., Northcraft, G. B., & Whicker, J. (2017). A theory of work gamification: Something old, something new, something borrowed, something cool? Human
Resource Management Review, 27(2), 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.014.
Chang, J. W., & Wei, H. Y. (2016). Exploring engaging gamification mechanics in massive online open courses. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2),
177–203. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1097207.
Coffman, T. (2013). Using inquiry in the classroom: Developing creative thinkers and information literate students. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2017). Challenge and skills effect on mental state. http://www.exrx.net/Psychology/ChallengeSkillMentalState.html.
Dale, E. (1969). Audio-visual methods in teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston108.
Davis, K., Sridharan, H., Koepke, L., Singh, S., & Boiko, R. (2018). Learning and engagement in a gamified course: Investigating the effects of student characteristics.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 492–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12254.
De-Marcos, L., Garcia-Lopez, E., & Garcia-Cabot, A. (2016). On the effectiveness of game-like and social approaches in learning: Comparing educational gaming,
gamification & social networking. Computers & Education, 95, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.008.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Denisova, A., Cairns, P., Guckelsberger, C., & Zendle, D. (2020). Measuring perceived challenge in digital games: Development & validation of the challenge origi-
nating from recent gameplay interaction scale (CORGIS). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 137, 102383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.
102383.
Derfler-Rozin, R., & Pitesa, M. (2020). Motivation purity bias: Expression of extrinsic motivation undermines perceived intrinsic motivation and engenders bias in
selection decisions. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0617.
Ding, L. (2019). Applying gamifications to asynchronous online discussions: A mixed methods study. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2018.09.022.
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.
Ding, L., Kim, C., & Orey, M. (2017). Studies of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 115, 126–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2017.06.016.
Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical
implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020.
Doumanis, I., Economou, D., Sim, G. R., & Porter, S. (2019). The impact of multimodal collaborative virtual environments on learning: A gamified online debate.
Computers & Education, 130, 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.017.
Eyupoglu, T. F., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2019). Intrinsic motivation in game-based learning environments. Game-based assessment revisited (pp. 85–102). Cham: Springer.
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.
Garcia-Sanjuan, F., Jurdi, S., Jaen, J., & Nacher, V. (2018). Evaluating a tactile and a tangible multi-tablet gamified quiz system for collaborative learning in primary
education. Computers & Education, 123, 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.011.
Ge, Z. G. (2018). The impact of a forfeit-or-prize gamified teaching on e-learners’ learning performance. Computers & Education, 126, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compedu.2018.07.009.
Göksün, D. O., & Gürsoy, G. (2019). Comparing success and engagement in gamified learning experiences via Kahoot and Quizizz. Computers & Education, 135, 15–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.015.
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.
Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., Wilson, A., & Razak, A. (2016). A systematic literature review of games-based learning empirical evidence in primary
education. Computers & Education, 102, 202–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.001.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii inter-
national conference on system sciences, Hawaii, USA. 6-9 January 2014 https://people.uta.fi/~kljuham/2014-hamari_et_al-does_gamification_work.pdf.
Hassan, M. A., Habiba, U., Majeed, F., & Shoaib, M. (2019). Adaptive gamification in e-learning based on students' learning styles. Interactive Learning Environments,
1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1588745.
Huang, B., & Hew, K. F. (2018). Implementing a theory-driven gamification model in higher education flipped courses: Effects on out-of-class activity completion and
quality of artifacts. Computers & Education, 125, 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.018.
Huang, B., Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Investigating the effects of gamification-enhanced flipped learning on undergraduate students' behavioral and cognitive
engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1106–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1495653.
Ioannou, A. (2019). A model of gameful design for learning using interactive tabletops: Enactment and evaluation in the socio-emotional education classroom.
Educational Technology Research & Development, 67(2), 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9610-1.
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.
Jo, J., Jun, H., & Lim, H. (2018). A comparative study on gamification of the flipped classroom in engineering education to enhance the effects of learning. Computer
Applications in Engineering Education, 26(5), 1626–1640. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21992.
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.
Kern, F. G. (2018). The trials and tribulations of applied triangulation: Weighing different data sources. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(2), 166–181. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1558689816651032.
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park: Sage Publication.
Kuo, M. S., & Chuang, T. Y. (2016). How gamification motivates visits and engagement for online academic dissemination. An empirical study. Computers in Human
Behavior, 55, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.025.
Kyewski, E., & Kramer, 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, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.006.
Landers, R. N., & Armstrong, M. B. (2017). Enhancing instructional outcomes with gamification: An empirical test of the technology-enhanced training effectiveness
model. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 499–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.031.
Landers, R. N., Bauer, K. N., Callan, R. C., & Armstrong, M. B. (2015). Psychological theory and the gamification of learning. Gamification in education and business (pp.
165–186). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_9.
Lee, S. J., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Edgar Dale: A significant contributor to the field of educational technology. Educational Technology, 47(6), 56–59.
van Leeuwen, A., & Janssen, J. (2019). A systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education. Educational
Research Review, 27, 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.001.
Lindberg, R. S., Laine, T. H., & Haaranen, L. (2019). Gamifying programming education in K‐12: A review of programming curricula in seven countries and pro-
gramming games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1979–1995. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12685.
Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2018). A comparison of flipped learning with gamification, traditional learning, and online independent study: The effects on students'
mathematics achievement and cognitive engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1541910.
Lopez, C. E., & Tucker, C. S. (2019). The effects of player type on performance: A gamification case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 333–345. https://doi.org/

22
Z. Zainuddin, et al. Educational Research Review 30 (2020) 100326

10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.005.
Maican, C., Lixandroiu, R., & Constantin, C. (2016). Interactivia. ro–A study of a gamification framework using zero-cost tools. Computers in Human Behavior, 61,
186–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.023.
Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Information & Learning.
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Google scholar, Web of science, and scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in
252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002.
Mekler, E. D., Bruhlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2017). Towards understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and
performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 525–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048.
Nishihara, T., Parwak, Y., Edogun, E., Park, G., & Lee, S. (2020). The promise of gamification in addressing health challenges of the modern world. Impacts of
information technology on patient care and empowerment (pp. 100–108). IGI Global.
Olivier, E., Archambault, I., De Clercq, M., & Galand, B. (2019). Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(2), 326–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0952-0.
Ortiz‐Rojas, M., Chiluiza, K., & Valcke, M. (2019). Gamification through leaderboards: An empirical study in engineering education. Computer Applications in
Engineering Education, 27(4), 777–788. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.12116.
Özdener, N. (2018). Gamification for enhancing Web 2.0 based educational activities: The case of pre-service grade school teachers using educational Wiki pages.
Telematics and Informatics, 35(3), 564–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.003.
Özyurt, Ö., & Özyurt, H. (2015). Learning style based individualized adaptive e-learning environments: Content analysis of the articles published from 2005 to 2014.
Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.020.
Qian, M., & Clark, K. R. (2016). Game-based learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chb.2016.05.023.
Rachels, J. R., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2018). The effects of a mobile gamification app on elementary students' Spanish achievement and self-efficacy. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 31(1–2), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1382536.
Rapp, A., Hopfgartner, F., Hamari, J., Linehan, C., & Cena, F. (2019). Strengthening gamification studies: Current trends and future opportunities of gamification
research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 127, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.11.007.
da Rocha Seixas, L., Gomes, A. S., & de Melo Filho, I. J. (2016). Effectiveness of gamification in the engagement of students. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 48–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.021.
Rodrigues, F., & Mogarro, M. J. (2019). Student teachers' professional identity: A review of research contributions. Educational Research Review, 28, 100286. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100286.
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.
Ryan, R. M., & Rigby, C. S. (2020). 6 motivational foundations of game-based learning, Vol. 153. Handbook of Game-Based Learning.
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.
Sánchez-Martín, J., Cañada-Cañada, F., & Dávila-Acedo, M. A. (2017). Just a game? Gamifying a general science class at university: Collaborative and competitive
work implications. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.05.003.
Sawyer, B., & Rejeski, D. (2002). Serious games: Improving public policy through game-based learning and simulation. Woodrow Wilson international center for scholars.
Serious games, (2002-1).
Schöbel, S., Janson, A., Jahn, K., Kordyaka, B., Turetken, O., Djafarova, N., et al. (2020). A research agenda for the why, what, and how of gamification designs results
on an ECIS 2019 panel. Communications of the association for information systems.
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.
Sousa‐Vieira, M. E., López‐Ardao, J. C., Fernández‐Veiga, M., Rodríguez‐Pérez, M., & Herrería‐Alonso, S. (2016). An open‐source platform for using gamification and
social learning methodologies in engineering education: Design and experience. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 24(5), 813–826. https://doi.org/
10.1002/cae.21746.
Subhash, S., & Cudney, E. A. (2018). Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 192–206. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.028.
Sung, H., & Hwang, G. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students' learning performance in science courses. Computers & Education,
63, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.019.
Toda, A. M., do Carmo, R. M., da Silva, A. P., Bittencourt, I. I., & Isotani, S. (2019). An approach for planning and deploying gamification concepts with social networks
within educational contexts. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.001.
Toda, A. M., Valle, P. H., & Isotani, S. (2018). The dark side of gamification: An overview of negative effects of gamification in education. Communications in Computer
and Information Science, 832, 143–156. 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.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4),
5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682.
Wood, L. C., & Reiners, T. (2015). Gamification. Encyclopedia of information science and technology (pp. 3039–3047). (3rd ed.). . https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-
5888-2.ch297 hershey: IGI global.
Wu, Y. L. (2018). Gamification design: A comparison of four m-learning courses. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 55(4), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14703297.2016.1250662.
Wu, M. L., Richards, K., & Saw, G. K. (2014). Examining a massive multiplayer online role-playing game as a digital game-based learning platform. Computers in the
Schools, 31(1–2), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2013.878975.
Yildirim, I. (2017). The effects of gamification-based teaching practices on student achievement and students' attitudes toward lessons. The Internet and Higher
Education, 33, 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.02.002.
York, J., & deHaan, J. W. (2018). A constructivist approach to game-based language learning: Student perceptions in a beginner-level EFL context. International Journal
of Game-Based Learning, 8(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2018010102.
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.
Zatarain Cabada, R., Barrón Estrada, M. L., Ríos Félix, J. M., & Alor Hernández, G. (2018). A virtual environment for learning computer coding using gamification and
emotion recognition. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1558256.
Zhonggen, Y. (2019). A meta-analysis of use of serious games in education over a decade. International Journal of Computer Games Technology, 2019. https://doi.org/10.
1155/2019/4797032 Article ID 4797032.
Zimmerling, E., Höllig, C. E., Sandner, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. (2019). Exploring the influence of common game elements on ideation output and motivation. Journal of
Business Research, 94, 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.02.030.

23