gamification in education case study

How Effective is Gamification in Education? 10 Case Studies and Examples

At its essence, gamification in learning involves the strategic integration of game elements and mechanics into educational pursuits, with the aim of promoting engagement, motivation, and enhanced learning outcomes.

By imbuing the learning experience with the excitement and sense of accomplishment associated with games, gamification has the potential to transform the way we approach education. Elements such as badges, leaderboards, and rewards tap into the innate human desire for achievement and progress, compelling students to devote their energies to the mastery of new skills and concepts.

Due to its increasingly recognized benefits, gamification is expected to grow by an average of 28% every year between now and 2030 .

Let’s dive into 10 case studies that explore the positive impact of gamification on student engagement, motivation, and learning performance.

1. 89% increase in student performance via challenge-based, gamified learning

A study was conducted among 365 students at the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering of the National Technical University of Athens, Greece.

The experiment involved a web-based gamified application called Horses for Courses aimed to improve the learning outcomes of students in statistics.

It was found that challenge-based gamification can improve student performance by 89.45% compared to lecture-based education .

The overall performance of the students increased by 34.75%.

2. Gamification led to a 65% increase in user engagement

Online Travel Training (OTT) launched a new website where members were encouraged to undertake particular training activities and earn virtual badges for completing 5 European training courses.

The platform conducted a review of its website users and found an average increase of 65% in user engagement and a 300% uplift in online activity for some users after implementing gamification.

3. Gamification boosts memory and recall by 40%

A study by the Federation of American Scientists found that students recalled 20% of what they heard. When visuals accompanied an oral lecture, the number rose to 30%.

If someone took an action along with the explanation, the number rose to 50%. But if the students perform the job themselves with the use of gamification, they can retain 90% of what they learned .

4. 68% of students feel more motivated and engaged when using gamified learning

A survey was conducted among 124 students to measure their behavior and perception of a gamified course, as it related to their motivation and engagement levels.

It was found that 67.7% of students felt that the gamified course was more motivating than a traditional course.

5. 300% higher homework completion rate when using a gamified course with levels, badges, and a feedback system

A study was conducted to test the validation of a gamified platform using badges, titles, leaderboards, etc., to support students.

The 2014-2017 study, conducted on three generations of students in two different computer science undergraduate courses, revealed that the gamified group had an attendance of 86.25% against 61% of the control group. The homework completion rate for the gamified lot was 56.25% compared to 18.5% of the control group .

6. The use of gamification in training led to a 44% increase in motivation

Compared to non-gamified training, gamification appears to enhance learning motivation and reduce boredom and unproductiveness.

A majority of individuals who receive non-gamified training scored low in motivation (28%), found the training boring (49%), and unproductive (12%). However, when gamification elements are included in training, 83% of individuals reported feeling motivated, while only 13% reported feeling bored or unproductive.

7. Learners using gamified tutorials completed tasks 57.5% faster than the control group

A study compared a gamified tutorial system with a non-gamified one. The findings revealed that students felt highly engaged, completed tasks faster, and did more tasks after using the tutorial with gamified components.

The student survey revealed that they were able to complete 10% more testing tasks and completed the tasks an average of 57.5% faster than the control group , which used a non-gamified tutorial.

8. Gamification improved students’ understanding of the curriculum by 75.5% and 89% wanted gamification for other subjects

A study included 260 management students who were surveyed and asked about their views on their experiences with gamification solutions at the end of the semester.

The students gave positive feedback and said that the classes were interesting and they liked attending them. 85% of students liked that they could be creative, 75.5% felt they better understood the curriculum , and 89% wanted a similar opportunity for other subjects.

9. 73% of children with ADHD reported a lasting improvement in attention after regularly playing the game EndeavorRx

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used EndeavorRx , the first prescription video game, to treat children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The method was tested on 600 children for over 7 years.

73% of children reported an improvement in their attention after eight weeks of use with a 25-minute play session five times a week for four weeks. This was the first time a video game was used as a part of digital therapy by the FDA.

10. 95% of medical students felt engaged during gamified learning and 74% agreed it was better than traditional lectures

A study was conducted to create a gamified review of core obstetric and gynecology topics which were educational and useful for residents.

In this study, 36 residents were divided into small groups led by a faculty facilitator. Each group was divided into two teams of three or four members who were asked to complete certain tasks and an online survey. Most of the residents enjoyed the activity.

95% of the medical learners agreed they were engaged during the gamified session. 74% agreed that the activity was better than traditional lectures.

This is a stark contrast to the 46% of students who reported feeling engaged at school in 2021.

Will the gamification revolution take over online learning?

Today, the digital generation is finding game-based learning familiar and more conducive to learning than traditional methods like lectures, passive videos, and textbooks.

The studies above show that students using gamification achieve better recall rates, faster task completion, and improved engagement compared with traditional learning formats.

It has become clear that gamification will be a key driver of next-generation learning systems, and educators have an incredible opportunity to implement game-based learning to improve student outcomes and enjoyment of learning.

Axon Park is focused on pushing these limits to make gamified learning even more fun, social, easy to create, and accessible across a wide range of platforms.

Axon Park is Building the Future of Learning

Subscribe for content on the metaverse, AI and education delivered to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe anytime. We value your privacy.

Virtual High Five! 🎉

Thank you for joining the Axon Park newsletter. We'll do our best to bring you great XR content.

Previous Post Cultural and Ethical Considerations of Metaverse Education

Next post how effective is ai in education 10 case studies and examples.

Enhancing human cognition and equalizing access to education through new technology.

• Build a Campus
• Creator Program
• VR Education Grants

TERMS & RESOURCES

• End-User License Agreement
• Terms and Conditions
• Code of Conduct
• Contributor Agreement
• Order Terms and Conditions
• Support Schedule
• Website Privacy Policy
• App Privacy Policy
• Learning Science

© 2023 Axon Park - All Rights Reserved

Privacy Overview

Advertisement

Teaching the Use of Gamification in Elementary School: A Case in Spanish Formal Education

• Original research
• Open access
• Published: 02 June 2023
• Volume 29 , pages 557–581, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• José-Manuel Sáez-López   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5938-1547 1 ,
• Rolando-Óscar Grimaldo-Santamaría   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7472-1025 2 ,
• Mª-Pilar Quicios-García   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2625-3888 1 &
• Esteban Vázquez-Cano   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6694-7948 1  

4559 Accesses

23 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 21 June 2023

This article has been updated

Gamification is an educational methodology and tool that offers benefits through mechanics and dynamics. It brings motivating experiences and benefits to the instructional design approach. Several studies highlight that this methodology fosters contributions in commitment, fun, enthusiasm, motivation, satisfaction, and interaction in pedagogical contexts. The sample of 308 teachers was obtained after the mass delivery of the instrument to educational centers in Spain. The sample is nonprobabilistic, and the study participants voluntarily answered the survey. Of the participants, 69.8% were women and 30.2% were men; this proportion is representative of the population of teachers. A descriptive analysis is based on three dimensions: most used programs, devices used, and didactic functionality. These data are triangulated with an analysis through the HJ-Biplot method, which is presented as a multivariate graphical representation of the data from an Xnxp matrix. This analysis details findings on the determining role played by the teacher and the relationship between years of experience, age, devices used, and resources used, detected with descriptive and bivariate analyses. Among the conclusions are that the subjects positively value training in digital teaching competence in terms of gamification, although in real daily practice only 30% of teachers claim to use gamified tools. Gamification provides collaborative and innovative benefits in relation to its didactic functionality.

Similar content being viewed by others

Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education

Adoption of online mathematics learning in Ugandan government universities during the COVID-19 pandemic: pre-service teachers’ behavioural intention and challenges

The Gamification of Learning: a Meta-analysis

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Gamification is an emerging instructional design approach to creating game experiences (Koivisto & Hamari, 2014 ), even in non-game contexts (Mylonas et al., 2021 ; Scriven & Langan, 2020 ). In educational contexts t is important to enhance the learning experience while maintaining a balance between content, games, and their application in the real world (AUTHOR, AUTHOR, AUTHOR; Sipone et al., 2019 ). Gamification consists of applying game design elements in real-world contexts, increasing student motivation and performance. Gamification is using game-based mechanics, aesthetics and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve problems” (AUTHOR). It is a method used to create a meaningful and motivating experience through the integration of mechanical play in non-recreational environments and applications.

Several scientific reports have analyzed the evolution and importance of gamification as an emerging trend in educational contexts (UNESCO, 2018 ; Zainuddin et al., 2020 ). Gamification has been presented in these reports as a new educational tool. Through mechanics and dynamics, gamification offers highly recommended benefits and advantages to promote motivating experiences among students (Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2017 ; Karakoç et al., 2022 ; Fiş-Erümit & Karakuş Yılmaz, 2022 ; AUTHOR; AUTHOR). Other reports have highlighted the benefits of this instructional design approach; some of these studies have reported that this methodology produces benefits for students such as commitment, fun, enthusiasm, and motivation (Blunt, 2007 ; Gooch et al., 2016 ; Hill, 2015 ; Manzano-León et al., 2021 ; Ordiz, 2017 ); satisfaction (Dicheva et al., 2015 ; Hursen & Bas, 2019 ; Nedergård, 2016 ); and interaction and communication (Yıldırım & Demir, 2016 ).

The objective advantages found in the application of gamification have been used in different disciplines and contexts. This article enumerates the advantages outlined by primary education teachers in Spain when this instructional design was applied in the classroom. Gamification in education fosters interactive possibilities that allow an adequate, dynamic, and positive organization (Tan Ai Lin et al., 2018 ; Tóth et al., 2019 ) of the teaching–learning process. The use of gamification in the teaching–learning process in the primary education stage is important (Ordiz, 2017 ; Parra-Gonzalez et al., 2020 ), since different investigations and reports suggest that gamification will be consolidated in the near future in elementary school as a learning methodology (Freeman et al., 2017 ; Hursen & Bas, 2019 ).

Currently, gamification in educational contexts pose challenges, interactions, and stimuli in educational processes, and they foster the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes at different stages of the educational system, including primary education (Martín-del-Pozo et al., 2019 ). Despite its benefits, the implementation of gamification in the teaching–learning process in primary school requires surmounting some difficulties, such as a lack of resources, the long time required to implement them, gaps in teacher training, and difficulties in adjusting the curriculum to innovative approaches. Even so, if an adequate implementation of gamification is achieved in this initial training, it is very possible that positive and significant results will be evidenced, as already highlighted by works that show some effects of gamification in primary education (Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2017 ; Uluyol & Sahin, 2016 ). These and other similar studies have shown the relationship between mathematics and video games (Goehle, 2013 ; Lameras & Moumoutzis, 2015 ), science teaching through playful approaches (Fernández-Oliveras, et al., 2021 ; Puig et al., 2021 ; Quintas et al., 2020a , 2020b ; Sipone et al., 2019 ), implementation of gamification to achieve higher-level skills, and problem solving that tries to promote active learning with game-based techniques (Liu & Chu, 2021 ; Quintas et al., 2020a , 2020b ; Stephen & Edwards, 2018 ).

As an instructional design approach, gamification requires tools and resources. Among such resources are accessible apps that use rewards and visually appealing interactive check-ins that allow constant feedback and organization in a virtual space. Many of these tools promote an innovative process of change aimed at improvement, interactivity, fun, and attention using technological means. Sometimes it is complex to combine the demands of educational regulations and the formal curriculum with playful approaches, but if an adequate implementation is achieved, the results provide numerous advantages.

Experiences and methodological implementations that have been described in the scientific literature include the flipped classroom (Parra-Gonzalez et al., 2021 ) using EdPuzzle-type tools. Tools like Class Dojo or Classcraft help in the communication and feedback process through an organization of badges and rewards in a learning management system. This information allows for the organization of the information in a colorful and entertaining way. The resources listed and others like them are effective and popular in implementing gamification at this stage.

The implementation of gamification in the primary education classroom is done through a global management of classroom interactions, through tasks and prizes with avatars and badges (da Rocha Seixas et al., 2016 ). Other popular tools are Kahoot, Socrative, or Trivinet. All of them provide interactive and dynamic activities that favor the feedback process with playable synchronous test activities (Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018 ; Plump & LaRosa, 2017 ; Sanchez et al., 2019 ); this synchronous and fun approach with tests is easy to apply and has a positive impact (Baydas & Cicek, 2019 ; Göksün & Gürsoy, 2019 ; Sanchez et al., 2019 ). The Duolingo app also enables enjoyable interaction for language learning (Rachels & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2018 ).

In short, some applications allow didactic progress to be combined with interactive activities in the virtual learning environment (Rodríguez et al., 2019 ; Sunday et al., 2022 ), promoting problem solving, interactions, feedback, fun, and enthusiasm. In some studies, significant differences have even been seen in academic performance when using gamification (Horwitz et al., 2022 ; Manzano-León et al., 2021 ), although this last variable is not so evident, nor does it present the academic consensus of those previously mentioned in the scientific literature.

The main objective of the study is to analyze the implementation and possibilities of gamification in Primary Education. The specific objectives are:

To assess the didactic functionality of gamification in elementary school students.

To analyze most used programs, activities and contents through Learning Centered Design.

To check teachers' experience, practices and perceived usefulness related to gamification.

To analyze the devices used in primary school in order to apply a gamification perspective.

To compare the implementation of gamification based on teaching experience.

As research questions we detail:

What tools, devices and activities can be used in pedagogical practice, with a gamified approach in Primary Education?

What influence does teaching experience have on the implementation of gamification in Elementary Education?

The study is based on the following research hypothesis: “Teachers considers that Didactic functionality of gamification provides innovative advantages, and fosters the development of students’ skills using interactive tools”. The analytical methodology of the data consisted of the triangulation of three statistical procedures, applied sequentially with the aim of evidencing the individual and group behavior of the variables analyzed. With the application of descriptive statistics, in a first initial phase, it was possible to summarize and show the characteristics of each of the items that make up the three dimensions studied, detecting those variables with the most remarkable behaviors (Table 2 , Figs.  1 , 2 ). The above information allowed the application of a second statistical procedure based on the X2 statistic ( p value < 0.005), determining the bivariate relationship between the socio-professional variables of the study and the three dimensions studied. The association measures and the corrected typified residuals evidenced the intensity and origin of the relationship detected between the variables. Finally, the third statistical procedure made it possible to represent spatially through a multivariate data graph the simultaneous behavior of the socio-professional variables and the teachers involved. The HJ-Biplot method, a multivariate statistical procedure, allowed through a “Xnxp matrix” the detection of behavior patterns among the variables (Fig.  3 ). The detailed explanation of the X2 and the HJ-Biplot, as well as the rules of interpretation, are shown and explained in the bivariate and multivariate analysis sections, respectively.

Dimension 2. Type of devices used. Values 4 = Agree + 5 = Totally agree

Dimension 3. Didactic functionality. Values 4 = Agree + 5 = Totally agree

Factorial representation resulting from the HJ-Biplot, plane 1–2. Note 1 : Order of the quandrants: 1st—upper right, 2nd—upper left, 3rd—lower left, 4th—lower right. The figure shows those centers with a representational quality equal to, or greater than, 400 points. Note 2 : P (Number of the teacher interviewed). Note 3 : Variable: AGE (interviewee’s age), ≤ 30 (less than or equal to 30 years), [≥ 31– ≤ 40] (equal to or more than 31 and less than or equal to 40 years), [≥ 41– ≤ 50] (equal to or more than 41 and less than or equal to 50 years) y ≥ 51 (equal to or more than 51 years); YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ≤ 10 (less than or equal to 10 years), [≥ 11– ≤ 20] (equal to or more than 11 and less than or equal to 20 years), [≥ 21– ≤ 30] (equal to or more than 21 and less than or equal to 30 years) y ≥ 31 (equal to or more than 31 years); DEVICES USED (Device that you usually use when using gamification-based applications) (Smartphone, Tablet, PC, Laptop, Game console, others); RESOURCES EMPLOYED (Resources used when programming activities based on gamification) (Software, App, Web Page, Restricted Access Platform, others). Note 4 : Cluster 1 (pink color), Cluster 2 (red color), and Cluster 3 (blue color). (Color figure online)

The research process underlying this article began with the application of a survey using a questionnaire. In a first phase, in 2020, the questionnaire validated the use of the Delphi technique and expert judgment, showing reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha result of 0.889. This questionnaire was registered under the name “GAUBI-PRO” in the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office, with trademark number M4150516.

The results presented here come exclusively from a three-dimensional study of the GAUBI-PRO questionnaire, deploying the dimensions of most used programs in gamification, devices used to carry out gamification in primary school, and didactic functionality of gamification. The results were obtained through the contrast and comparison of different analyses and sources. Acting in this way has made it possible to carry out a triangulation of data. This triangulation provides consistency and validity to the study by minimizing the error variance (Cohen et al., 2000 ). Based on this idea, a descriptive analysis, a contingency analysis, and the application of the HJ-Biplot methodology have been carried out to analyze the data. Likewise, Pearson’s chi-square statistic has been applied. The application of this statistic has shown significant results ( p value < 0.05), thus fulfilling the assumption that the expected frequencies were not small. Results are open to replication and verification by future studies.

4 Participants

which was non-probabilistic and intentional, was formed of 308 teachers who responded to an online questionnaire delivered to educational centers across Spain. The group was 74.2% women and 25.8 men, which made for a sample that was representative of the gender disparity in this profession. The mean age of the subjects was 41.46 years, with a mean of 15.9 years’ teaching experience. The sample was considered to be representative, given its size, age and gender distribution. The sample size was assumed to be normal, as confirmed by the Kolmogorov Smirnov test result. The sample subjects were drawn from state schools (78.6%), state-supported private schools (15.3%) and private schools (6.1%), a proportion that broadly reflects student representation in education in Spain. It was noteworthy that 67.9% of those surveyed were already participating in ICT projects at their schools, which demonstrates the interest of the subjects in their own learning and skills improvement. The other 32.1% stated they were not involved in any ICT project. Another interesting fact was that 52.1% of the subjects were satisfied that the technological resources available to them at their centers, 31.5% believed they could be improved, and 16.2% stated that their digital resources were insufficient.

5 Instrument and Variables

The data were gathered between September 1st and October 21st (2021). A questionnaire was designed to be completed online by the teachers, having given prior informed consent, under the Spanish Research Project (Blind). For this study, three dimensions of GAUBI-PRO questionnaire were used, deploying the dimensions of most used programs in gamification, devices used to carry out gamification in primary school, and didactic functionality of gamification. In a first phase, in 2020, the questionnaire validated the use of the Delphi technique and expert judgment, showing reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha result of 0.889 and KMO = 0.891 (Table 1 ). In appendix, we present the Delphi results and the dimensions of the questionnaire. This questionnaire was registered under the name “GAUBI-PRO” in the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office, with trademark number M4150516. The questionnaire was sent to the official email account of the different schools. The questionnaire contained four latent variables with 24 items. The teachers had to respond to each item by scoring it on a 1–7 scale, 1 meaning “totally disagree” and 7 “totally agree”. Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study.

The Bartlett test’s significance score ( p  < 0.05) indicated that our matrix differed from the matrix unit with a confidence level of 95%, thus, there were significant correlations between the variables to indicate the possible existence of latent variables (Table 1 ). The KMO test presented a value close to 1 (0.891), thus, the partial correlations of our variables were minor. The Cronbach alpha score was 0.889.

6.1 Descriptive Analysis

Dimension 1: Most used programs (Table 1 ).

In this dimension, as observed by the data presented, the importance that the sample gives to training in gamification in teacher training stands out.

Item 1.5, stating that continuous training in digital teaching competence in gamification is considered necessary, was affirmed by 87.4% of participants. Additionally, 62% stated that they had received training in digital competence as part of their continuing education (item 1.6); only 6.8% stated that they had received training in their initial university education (item 1.4). Items 1.1 and 1.2 refer to how essential game-based learning is in education and immersive environments in initial university education, with responses above 70%. These results are related to objective 2 and to the first research question.

Dimension 2: Devices used (Table 2 , Fig.  1 ).

The participants, in general, reported nonuse of the applications included in the analysis instrument. The most used application (43.5% of subjects) was the interactive test of the Kahoot/Socrative type. Usage of the resources Classdojo, Edmodo Flashcards, and Quizlet (items 2.5 and 2.7) approached 30% of participants. The least used resources (lower than 20% of participants) were Minecraft, Scratch, VR, Classcraft (items 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6), and StoryTelling (item 2.3). These results are related to objective 4 and to the first research question.

Dimension 3: Didactic functionality.

The most supported item was 3.6 (90% of respondents), which indicates that the educational applicability of gamification depends on the positive attitude of teachers. This item is followed in support by item 3.5 (80%), which defined gamification as an educational innovation. The same value is reached in item 3.2, represented in Fig.  2 . It is essential the importance of the degree of teaching digital competence (item 3.4), the availability of resources, and the need for time and preparation (3.7).

One piece of data that stands out in this dimension is that these approaches foster collaborative learning (item 3.1) and that around 75% of the subjects consider that gamification improves learning outcomes (item 3.3). These results are related to objective 1 and 3, and to the second research question.

A bivariate analysis was performed through Pearson’s chi square (X2). We detail nonparametric statistical test of the null hypothesis of statistical independence through significance tests in contingency tables. With data incompatible with the hypothesis of independence, the probability of association (X2) will have values less than 0.05 and the variables will be determined to be associated.

6.2 Bivariate Analysis

Considering the variables in this study, Kendall’s Tau-c coefficient was used to express the intensity of the detected association. The sign of the coefficient indicates the direction of the relationship. The absolute value indicates the force. The values range between − 1 and 1. The strongest relationships are indicated by the extreme values.

The corrected standardized residuals correspond to the difference between the observed and expected frequency in terms of standardized Z score. These values allow the precise detection of the combinations that make the association between the variables possible. The main utility of these residuals lies in their distribution with zero mean and one standard deviation that is easily interpretable. Using the confidence level of 0.95, corrected standardized residuals greater than 1.96 reveal the cells with more cases than should exist in the event that the variables analyzed were independent. The reverse happens with residuals less than − 1.96. The corrected standardized residuals, after the chi square statistic and the quantification indices, are the most accurate option to explain the association between the variables studied (Mateos-Aparicio Morales & Hernández Estrada, 2021 ).

Table 3 shows the information of the X2, the association index, and the standardized residuals corrected for the variables related statistically significant with the age of the sample. The Kendall’s Tau-c coefficient in all associations has a relatively small absolute value, but with a negative sign. In other words, interviewee age is associated with a slight decrease in the application of the tools used inside and outside the classroom. The Flashcards variable is the one that most accentuates this finding. The corrected standardized residuals, in the case of the Kahoot variable, show that teachers under 30 years of age are those who use this tool to a greater extent, and those over 51 the least. Exactly the same thing happens with the Flashcards variable and, to a lesser extent, with the rest of the variables. These results show that age is a determining factor in the use of tools.

Table 4 shows the relationship between years of experience of the teachers interviewed and the most used and significant tools. The behavior of the association between the variables is quite similar to that detected with the age variable, although with a slightly lower Kendall’s Tau-c coefficient. The conclusion drawn is that the more years of experience the less use of the tools. The corrected standardized residuals corroborate this same conclusion for almost all the tools.

Table 5 provides conclusions similar to those shown by years of experience and age of the teacher. In addition to showing that some tools are not statistically significant, the absolute value of Kendall’s Tau-c is somewhat smaller than that obtained in the previous analyses, but still with negative signs. This indicates that there is a slight variation in the use of the tool depending on the work center. Tools such as Minecraft, Classcraft, Augmented Reality, and Flashcards tend to be more used in public centers and the last two at an intermediate level in private centers. The private centers show limitations in the use of these tools.

Table 6 shows the relationship between the age of the teacher and the didactic functionality of gamification in the statistically significant variables. Kendall’s Tau-c, with quite low absolute values, but with negative signs in all cases, shows that the younger the teacher, the greater the increase in the assessment of the didactic functionality of gamification, and vice versa. The corrected typified residuals account for this relationship, as observed in the gamification and digital variable, whereas age increases, the valuation in the use of this activity decreases. This pattern is repeated with gamification and positive teachers. At intermediate ages this assessment stabilizes.

Table 7 shows the statistically significant relationship between years of experience and functionality. Except for play and learning, the other variables have a negative Kendall’s Tau-c coefficient. This indicates that as the years of experience increase, the valuation of the games and learning variable also increases. The interpretation of the coefficient for each of the variables must be conservative, as the absolute value is quite small. The corrected standardized residuals reaffirm these findings. In the case of the game and learning variable, as the years of experience increase, so do the positive evaluations regarding the didactic functionality. The rest of the variables present a different behavior, due to the fact that with the increase in years of experience, the interest in the didactic functionality decreases slightly.

Table 8 shows the relationship between the work center and the variables that showed statistical significance within the didactic functionality section. The intensity of association between the variables is again weak and negative, as shown by the coefficients and signs of Kendall’s Tau-c. This indicates that depending on the characteristics of the workplace, the assessment of each of the activities of didactic functionality will fluctuate. Variables such as Gamification and Available Resources. Gamification and Innovation show similar behaviors, both in public and private centers. Variables such as digital gamification and teacher preparation gamification show different behaviors depending on the work center.

6.3 Multivariate Analysis

The HJ-Biplot method is a multivariate graphical representation of the data of an Xnxp matrix, using markers j1,…, jn for the rows and h1,…, hp for the columns (Galindo, 1986 ).

The markers j1…jn and h1…hp can be superimposed in the same reference system with maximum rendering quality. The presentation of rows and columns with equal goodness of fit facilitates the interpretation of the position, both of the rows and of the columns. This superposition also allows identifying the relationship between row and column markers (Amaro-Martin, 2001 ; Hernández Sánchez, 2016 ). The interpretation of the HJ-Biplot is based on a set of rules used in other multivariate statistical reduction techniques such as factor analysis, multidimensional scaling, correspondence analysis, and classic biplots (Díaz-Faes et al., 2013 ). The geometric understanding of the biplot is based on geometric concepts on a flat representation of Cartesian axes. The application of the HJ-Biplot allows interpreting the distance, in terms of similarity, between the row markers (teachers interviewed) and the proximity of the column markers (variables) in terms of covariation. Interpretation of results must take into account that the more distant the row markers are from the origin (center of gravity of the Cartesian plane), the greater variability will be evidenced by the teachers interviewed. That is, the teachers will have a high quality of representation. Similarly, the order of the orthogonal projections of each of the row markers on a column marker (position of each of the teachers with respect to age, years of experience, or type of device used) reproduces the order of the elements of the starting matrix. This permits an analysis of the positions of the projections of the row markers and ordering them according to their position at the moment of the projection on the column marker.

Another aspect that must be assessed to interpret the HJ-Biplot is the direction of the vectors. This indicates the sense in which the variability of the column markers increases, thus approximating the length of the vector to the standard deviation of age, years of experience, and type of device used. The cosine of the angle formed between two vectors shows the correlation between the variables. The acute angles indicate a positive correlation, and the right and obtuse angles show a null and negative correlation, respectively.

The statistical analysis was carried out with the Multbiplot software in the programming environment focused on matrices. The data occupy a X308 × 4 matrix that has the 308 teachers interviewed in the rows and the four social and gamification variables in the columns. Thus, for each row i (teacher) and each column j (variable), a value xij appears in the data matrix, which is the value of that teacher j for each variable i. The data have been standardized by columns due to the plurality of units of measurement of the variables. Teachers with representation quality lower than 400 have not been represented in the factor graphs.

7 Impact and Collaboration Analysis Plane 1–2

Figure  3 shows the factor plot of plane 1–3 resulting from the HJ-Biplot analysis (explained inertia 83.93%). The vectors represent the analyzed variables. The dots represent the teachers interviewed. The left and right part of the second factorial axis shows interesting behaviors in relation to the three formed clusters. The right part mainly groups the teachers of cluster 1. These teachers are distinguished by their relative youth (age and years of experience) as well as by the low application of gamification devices and resources (opposite direction to the vectors). In contrast, the left part of this second factorial axis contains almost all the teachers from clusters 2 and 3. It also contains the variables age, years of experience, devices used, and resources used. The variables have a strong and direct relationship, as evidenced by the large acute angle they form. This indicates that, in general terms, the teachers of clusters 2 and 3 are characterized by a combination of years of experience, age, and application of gamification devices and resources. Refining this relationship, it is observed that age and years of experience are more present in cluster 2, while the use of gamification devices and resources is more present in cluster 3.

8 Conclusions and Discussion

Gamification developed through tools or in immersive environments can generate greater motivation for learning in primary education children, as well as commitment, enthusiasm, and participation in their academic training. But to achieve all these training advantages in the first years of schooling, primary education teachers must be trained in gamification. Based on the results shown in this study, such training is not typically received by Spanish teachers, either through their initial university training or by continuing education among veteran teachers.

Various studies highlight the importance of motivation in gamified implementations (Agüero Contreras et al., 2020 ; Bell, 2017 ; Chalkiadaki, 2018 ; Mitchell et al., 2020 ; AUTHOR; Wichadee & Pattanapichet, 2018 ; Zainuddin et al., 2020 ). Motivation is the variable with the greatest presence in research with game-based interventions, so it can be said that there is significant agreement in the academic community regarding the importance and presence of motivation in playful interventions, and in applications. technologies (Chalkiadaki, 2018 ).

The commitment and enthusiasm of the students that is detailed in this study is also detailed in recent research (Bell, 2017 ; Fernández-Rio et al., 2020 ; Furdu et al., 2017 ; Halloluwa et al., 2016 ; López-Faican & Jaen, 2020 ).

Regarding the implications for theory, methodology and pedagogical practice, it is important to highlight the abundant educational research in the context of elementary education. The literature has detailed the importance of teacher training and the problems that a lack of training can cause (Furdu et al., 2017 ; Kasinathan et al., 2018 ; Zainuddin et al., 2020 ). The variable related to the teaching experience in these studies is also detailed, so that an agreement and coherence is maintained with the contributions detailed in the present investigation.

Our study shows that veteran teachers tend to avoid this instructional design approach, presumably due to their lack of training, the time required to put it into practice in the classroom, or difficulties in accommodating the school curriculum to this approach. Among younger teachers, this behavior is less pronounced. Of the nonprobabilistic study sample, 67.9% stated that they were attracted to gamification, and 87.4% stated that they considered continuous training in digital teaching competence in the subject to be necessary. In other words, the teachers themselves see the need to receive training on this approach to instructional design, but only 6.8% reported having received training in their initial education; the rest had undertaken continuous education in this area or participated in innovation programs.

There are numerous investigations (Anak & Kim, 2021 ; Fernández-Oliveras, et al., 2021 ; Gurjanow et al., 2019 ; Kekuluthotuwage & Fernando, 2017 ; Plump & LaRosa, 2017 ; Ståhl et al., 2019 ; Tan Ai Lin et al., 2018 ; Tóth et al., 2019 ; Wichadee & Pattanapichet, 2018 ) that analyze applications, resources in the implementation of gamification in elementary education, generally coinciding with our study on the benefits of using these tools, as well as the importance of teacher attitudes, due to who are gradually becoming familiar with its use. The great presence and effectiveness of the Kahoot application is also highlighted (Tan Ai Lin et al., 2018 ; Tóth et al., 2019 ; Wichadee & Pattanapichet, 2018 ) coinciding with the results of our study.

An important conclusion of this study is that among teachers who were attracted by gamification, only 43.5% use the interactive Kahoot/Socrative test as a training application, despite recognizing that the educational applicability of gamification depends on the positive attitude of the teaching staff as well as digital teaching competence and the availability of resources, time, and preparation. This result is also relevant despite the fact that 75% of the sample considers that gamification improves collaborative learning and learning results.

The interactive Kahoot test and Flashcards are the most used tools among teachers under 30 years of age and the least used among those over 51. The rest of the variables show similar behaviors. These results corroborate the hypothesis that the age of the teacher is a determining factor in the use of gamified tools.

The type of work center also clearly determines the use of these training resources. Educational centers maintained entirely with public funds, that is, public educational centers, use Minecraft, Classcraft, Augmented Reality, and Flashcards to a greater extent than private centers. Private centers use Augmented Reality and Flashcards at a medium level, and concerted centers use such tools infrequently. Thus, we conclude that the use of gamification in primary school is not related to the economic capacity of educational centers; the use of these tools depends exclusively on the teaching decision.

The type of educational center (public, concerted, private) does show important differences in terms of the assessment of the use of digital gamification and the relationship between gamification and teacher training, and it is logical that this is the case. Concerted and private centers support the quality of their teaching in all aspects that, at least theoretically, are related to teaching innovation and the use of ICT in educational processes.

Through multivariate analysis we confirmed the findings on the determining role played by the teacher. The HJ-Biplot method confirms the relationship between years of experience, age, devices used, and resources used, detected with descriptive and bivariate analyses. In addition, it spatially shows the closer relationship between the first two variables and the last two, revealing that teacher seniority is a conditioning factor when it comes to the use of certain resources or devices in the classroom.

In short, the results show that teachers positively value the need for continuous training in teaching digital competence in terms of gamification and working in these environments; however, in practice only around 30% of teachers actually use gamified tools. The most used are Kahoot, Socrative, and Plicker. Regarding the didactic functionality, the teachers in this study consider that gamification provides numerous collaborative and innovative advantages and fosters the development of skills, although the availability of resources and teacher intentionality regarding application are key.

8.1 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Study

The research is limited to a sample of Spanish teachers. It would be desirable that further studies in different socio-educational contexts could help to refute, clarify, or confirm these results. Likewise, the characteristics of teachers, students, families, and socio-educational contexts should be analyzed to define their influence on the adoption or not of this type of gamified apps in primary education.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Change history

21 june 2023.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09663-9

Agüero Contreras, F., Rojas Consuegra, R., & Rodríguez Rodríguez, R. R. (2020). Jugando con fósiles: Un cuasiexperimento para socializar saberes paleontológicos. Revista Universidad y Sociedad, 12 (5), 83–96.

Google Scholar  

Amaro Martin, I. R. (2001). Manova biplot for designs with several factors, based on multivariate general linear models [Doctoral Thesis]. University of Salamanca.

Anak, C., & Kim, T. (2021). Exploring gamified learning tool in ESL classroom: The case of Quizizz. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 8 (1), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2021.81.103.108

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Bell, K. (2017). Game On!: Gamification, gameful design, and the rise of the gamer educator . Johns Hopkins University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bicen, H., & Kocakoyun, S. (2018). Perceptions of students for gamification approach: Kahoot as a case study. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13 (2), 72–93. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7467

Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2017). Digital competences and long-term ICT integration in school culture: The perspective of elementary school leaders. Education and Information Technologies, 22 , 769–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9456-7

Blunt, R. (2007). Does game-based learning work? Results from three recent studies. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference (I ITSEC). NTSA.

Chalkiadaki, A. (2018). A systematic literature review of 21st century skills and competencies in primary education. International Journal of Instruction, 11 (3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1131a

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education . Routledge Falmer.

Cózar-Gutierrez, R., & Sáez-López, J. M. (2016). Aprendizaje basado en juegos y gamificación en la formación inicial docente en Ciencias Sociales: una experiencia con “MinecraftEdu”. International. Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13 (2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0003-4

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

Díaz-Faes, A. A., González-Albo, B., Galindo, M. P., & Bordons, M. (2013). HJ-Biplot as an inspection tool for bibliometric data matrices. Spanish Journal of Scientific Documentation . https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2013.1.988

Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18 (3), 75–88.

Fernández-Oliveras, A., Espigares-Gámez, M. J., & Oliveras, M. L. (2021). Implementation of a playful microproject based on traditional games for working on mathematical and scientific content. Education in Science, 11 , 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100624

Fernández-Rio, J., de las Heras, E., González, T., Trill, V., & Palomares, J. (2020). Gamification and physical education. Viability and preliminary views from students and teachers. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 25 (5), 509–524.

Fiş Erümit, S., & Karakuş Yılmaz, T. (2022). Gamification design in education: What might give a sense of play and learning? Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27 , 1039–1061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09604-y

Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K–12 Edition. The New Media Consortium.

Furdu, I., Tomozei, C., & Köse, U. (2017). Pros and cons gamification and gaming in classroom. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 8 , 56–62.

Galindo, M. P. (1986). A simultaneous rendering alternative: HJ-Biplot. Quaderns D’estadística, Sistemes, Informatica i Investigació Operativa, 10 (1), 13–23.

Goehle, G. (2013). Gamification and web-based homework. Primus, 23 (3), 234–246.

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

Gooch, D., Vasalou, A., Benton, L., & Khaled, R. (2016). Using gamification to motivate students with dyslexia. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 969–980).

Grandson-Bookseller, A.-B. (2015). Inferential version of the biplot methods based on Bootstrap Resampling and its Application to Three-Way Tables [Doctoral Thesis]. University of Salamanca. https://doi.org/10.14201/gredos.128244

Gurjanow, I., Oliveira, M., Zender, J., Santos, P. A., & Ludwig, M. (2019). Mathematics trails: Shallow and deep gamification. International Journal of Serious Games, 6 (3), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v6i3.30

Halloluwa, T., Vyas. D., Usoof, H., Hewagamage, K., & Sahama, T (2016). Gamifying mathematics for primary students in rural Sri Lanka . In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 1–4). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971522

Hernández Sánchez, J. C. (2016). Logistic Biplot for Nominal and Ordinal Data [Doctoral Thesis]. University of Salamanca. https://doi.org/10.14201/gredos.128405

Hill, V. (2015). Digital citizenship through game design in Minecraft. New Library World, 116 , 369–382.

Horwitz, P., Reichsman, F., Lord, T., et al. (2022). If we build it, will they learn? An analysis of students’ understanding in an interactive game during and after a research project. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09617-7

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: Anchoring gamification in the service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27 (1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z

Hursen, C., & Bas, C. (2019). Use of gamification applications in science education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14 (1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i01.8894

Karakoç, B., Eryılmaz, K., Turan Özpolat, E., et al. (2022). The effect of game-based learning on student achievement: A meta-analysis study. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27 , 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09471-5

Kasinathan, V., Mustapha, A., Fauzi, R., & Rani, M. F. (2018). Questionify: Gamification in education. International Journal of Integrated Engineering, 10 (6), 139–143.

Kekuluthotuwage, P., & Fernando, P. (2017). HomeSchool: An interactive educational tool for child education. In Proceedings of the national information technology conference (NITC) (pp. 34–39)

Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35 , 179–188.

Lameras, P., & Moumoutzis, N. (2015). Towards the gamification of inquiry-based flipped teaching of mathematics: A conceptual analysis and framework. International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication . https://doi.org/10.1109/IMCTL.2015.7359616

Liu, X., & Chu, S. (2021). Exploring the effects of gamification pedagogy on children’s reading: A mixed-method study on academic performance, reading-related mentality and behaviors, and sustainability. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52 (1), 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13057

López-Faican, L., & Jaen, J. (2020). EmoFindAR: Evaluation of a mobile multiplayer augmented reality game for primary school children. Computers & Education, 149 , 103814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103814

Manzano-León, A., Camacho-Lazarraga, P., Guerrero, M. A., Guerrero-Puerta, L., Aguilar-Parra, J. M., Trigueros, R., & Alias, A. (2021). Between level up and game over: A systematic literature review of gamification in education. Sustainability, 13 , 2247. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042247

Martín-del-Pozo, M., García-Valcárcel, A., & Hernández, A. (2019). Video games and collaborative learning in education? A scale for measuring in-service teachers’ attitudes towards collaborative learning with video games. Informatics, 6 (3), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6030030

Mateos-Aparicio Morales, G., & Hernández Estrada, A. (2021). Análisis multivariante de datos: cómo buscar patrones de comportamiento en big data (Ser. Economía y empresa). Piramide.

Mitchell, R., Schuster, L., & Jin, H. S. (2020). Gamification and the impact of extrinsic motivation on needs satisfaction: Making work fun? Journal of Business Research, 106 , 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.022

Mylonas, G., Paganelli, F., Cuffaro, G., Nesi, I., & Karantzis, D. (2021). Using gamification and IoT-based educational tools towards energy savings—Some experiences from two schools in Italy and Greece. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-02838-7

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nedergård, D. (2016). Internal motivation in gamification . http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:939900/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Ordiz, T. (2017). Gamificación: La vuelta al mundo en 80 días. Infancia. Educación y Aprendizaje, 3 , 397–403.

Parra-Gonzalez, M. E., Lopez-Belmonte, J., Segura-Robles, A., & Fuentes-Cabrera, A. (2020). Active and emerging methodologies for ubiquitous education: Potentials of flipped learning and gamification. Sustainability, 12 (2), 1–11.

Parra-Gonzalez, M. E., Lopez-Belmonte, J., Segura-Robles, A., & Moreno-Guerrero, A. J. (2021). Gamification and flipped learning and their influence on aspects related to the teaching-learning process. Heliyon, 7 (2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06254

Plump, C. M., & LaRosa, J. (2017). Using Kahoot! in the classroom to create engagement and active learning: A game-based technology solution for elearning novices. Management Teaching Review, 2 (2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298116689783

Puig, A., Rodríguez, I., Baldeón, J., & Múria, S. (2021). Children building and having fun while they learn geometry. Computer Applications in Engineering Education . https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22484

Quintas, A., Bustamante, J.-C., Pradas, F., & Castellar, C. (2020a). Psychological effects of gamified didactics with exergames in Physical Education at primary schools: Results from a natural experiment. Computers & Education, 152 , 103874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103874

Quintas, A., Peñarrubia-Lozano, C., & Bustamante, J. C. (2020b). Analysis of the applicability and utility of a gamified didactics with exergames at primary schools: Qualitative findings from a natural experiment. PLoS ONE, 15 (4), e0231269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231269

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

Rodríguez, J. M. R., Cabrera, A. F., Jiménez, C. R., & Fernández, C. R. F. (2019). Gamification of teaching with ClassDojo app: An experience in the Primary Education Degree. In Conference proceedings EDUNOVATIC 2018: 3rd virtual international conference on education, innovation and ICT (p. 75). Adaya Press.

Sáez-López, J. M., Sevillano-García, M. L., & Pascual-Sevillano, M. A. (2019). Aplicación del juego ubicuo con realidad aumentada en Educación Primaria. Comunicar, 61 , 71–82. https://doi.org/10.3916/C61-2019-06

Sanchez, D. R., Langer, M., & Kaur, R. (2019). Gamification in the classroom: Examining the impact of gamified quizzes on student learning. Computers & Education, 144 , 103666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103666

Scriven, R., & Langan, V. (2020). Audio and ludic engagements with spiritual heritage at an Irish holy well. Cultural Geographies in Practice, 27 (3), 485–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474019892001

Sipone, S., Abella-García, V., Barreda, R., & Rojo, M. (2019). Learning about sustainable mobility in primary schools from a playful perspective: A focus group approach. Sustainability, 11 , 2387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082387

Ståhl, M., Kaihovirta, H., & Rimpilä, M. (2019). Gamifying literature and aesthetic processes—a student perspective on an interactive play. In Proceedings of 13th European conference on game based learning (ECGBL ) (pp. 685–693). ACPIL. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/315268

Stephen, C., & Edwards, S. (2018). Young children playing and learning in a digital age: A cultural and critical perspective . Routledge.

Sunday, K., Oyelere, S. S., Agbo, F. J., et al. (2022). Usability evaluation of imikode virtual reality game to facilitate learning of object-oriented programming. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09634-6

Tan Ai Lin, D., Ganapathy, M., & Kaur, M. (2018). Kahoot! it: Gamification in higher education. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26 (1), 565–582.

Tóth, Á., Lógó, P., & Lógó, E. (2019). The effect of the Kahoot quiz on the student’s results in the exam. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 27 (2), 173–179.

Uluyol, C., & Sahin, S. (2016). Elementary school teachers’ ICT use in the classroom and their motivators for using ICT. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47 (1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12220

UNESCO. (2018). UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers .

Wichadee, S., & Pattanapichet, F. (2018). Enhancement of performance and motivation through application of digital games in an English language class. Teaching English with Technology, 18 (1), 77–92.

Yıldırım, İ, & Demir, S. (2016). Students’ views about gamification based curriculum fot the lesson of “teaching principles and methods.” Uluslararası Eğitim Programlarıve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 6 (11), 85–101.

Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. (2020). The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational Research Review, 30 , 100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326

Download references

Acknowledgements

Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. Funding was provided by 34000 (Grant No. RTI2018-099764-B-100). This research has been developed with the support of the I+D+I Project entitled: "Gamification and ubiquitous learning in Primary Education. Development of a map of teaching, learning and parental competences and resources 'GAUBI.'" (RTI2018-099764-B-100) (MICINN/FEDER) It is financed by FEDER (the European Regional Development Fund) and the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of Spain.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), C/ Juan del Rosal 14, Room 2.08, 208040, Madrid, Spain

José-Manuel Sáez-López, Mª-Pilar Quicios-García & Esteban Vázquez-Cano

Comillas Pontifical University, Madrid, 28015, Spain

Rolando-Óscar Grimaldo-Santamaría

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José-Manuel Sáez-López .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation [UNED bioethics committee] and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: The affiliation of Rolando-Óscar Grimaldo-Santamaría has been revised.

Delphi Phase. Final Round of Experts (n = 17).

Final Questionnaire

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sáez-López, JM., Grimaldo-Santamaría, RÓ., Quicios-García, MP. et al. Teaching the Use of Gamification in Elementary School: A Case in Spanish Formal Education. Tech Know Learn 29 , 557–581 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09656-8

Download citation

Accepted : 19 May 2023

Published : 02 June 2023

Issue Date : March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09656-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Educational technology
• Elementary education
• Gamification
• Instructional design
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 09 January 2020

The impact of gamification on students’ learning, engagement and behavior based on their personality traits

• Rodrigo Smiderle 3 ,
• Sandro José Rigo 3 ,
• Leonardo B. Marques 1 ,
• Jorge Arthur Peçanha de Miranda Coelho 2 &
• Patricia A. Jaques   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2933-1052 3  

Smart Learning Environments volume  7 , Article number:  3 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

211k Accesses

120 Citations

40 Altmetric

Metrics details

The gamification of education can enhance levels of students’ engagement similar to what games can do, to improve their particular skills and optimize their learning. On the other hand, scientific studies have shown adverse outcomes based on the user’s preferences. The link among the user’s characteristics, executed actions, and the game elements is still an open question. Aiming to find some insights for this issue, we have investigated the effects of gamification on students’ learning, behavior, and engagement based on their personality traits in a web-based programming learning environment. We have conducted an experiment for four months with 40 undergraduate students of first-year courses on programming. Students were randomly assigned to one of the two versions of the programming learning environment: a gamified version composed of ranking, points, and badges and the original non-gamified version. We have found evidence that gamification affected users in distinct ways based on their personality traits. Our results indicate that the effect of gamification depends on the specific characteristics of users.

First part title: Studying the impact of gamification on learning and engagement based on the personality traits of students

Introduction

Gamification of education is a strategy for increasing engagement by incorporating game elements into an educational environment ( Dichev and Dicheva 2017 ). The goal is to generate levels of involvement equal to what games can usually produce ( Fardo 2014 ). The main goals of gamification are to enhance certain abilities, introduce objectives that give learning a purpose, engage students, optimize learning, support behavior change, and socialize ( Knutas et al. 2014 ; Krause et al. 2015 ; Dichev and Dicheva 2017 ; Borges et al. 2013 ).

Stimulated by the effects that game elements can produce, many researchers have looked into the influence of gamification in an educational context, getting favorable results, such as the increase of engagement, user retention, knowledge, and cooperation ( Hakulinen and Auvinen 2014 ; Tvarozek and Brza 2014 ). Despite that, some studies have shown uncertain or prejudicial results from gamification ( Christy and Fox 2014 ). They found that ranking affects women in various ways and may guide to unexpected opposite impact. Hanus and Fox ( 2015 ) informed that, in addition to not increase the results, gamification decreases pleasure and motivation. Haaranen et al. ( 2014 ) noticed that some users had adverse emotions about the badges.

The mix of controversial results related to the effects of gamification in learning environments yield doubts concerning the advantages of its utilization in an educational setting. Moreover, research about the effects of gamification elements on students’ learning, participation, and other effects, is a broad goal. The objective should be delimited to what elements of games are efficient for a particular type of student, involved in a given activity ( Dichev and Dicheva 2017 ). Different layouts of elements of games, used to add gamification to diverse activities, produces different effects, hampering the process of determining which elements or collection of these elements are efficient to promote the engagement and learning for a group or type of user, doing a specific action ( Dichev and Dicheva 2017 ). The motivation ( Pedro 2016 ; Hakulinen and Auvinen 2014 ; Mekler et al. 2017 ), player profile ( Barata et al. 2014 ; O’Donovan et al. 2013 ) and personality ( Codish and Ravid 2014 ; Jia et al. 2016 ) are the characteristics and preferences that have been most investigated in gamified learning environments.

The user’s personality is the set of characteristics and psychological factors that are used to understand how individuals think and interact ( Goldberg 1992 ). Personality traits refer to an individual’s reactions to different situations, and little is known about how different elements of gamification affect engagement based on the user’s traits ( Codish and Ravid 2014 ). Empirical studies are needed to verify whether the effect of gamification may differ depending on users’ personality traits.

Codish and Ravid ( 2014 ) researched, through preference surveys, how extroverts and introverts received the gamification and discovered an adverse effect of the ranking on extroverted students and favorable but not substantial on introverted students; extroverts chose the badges. On the other hand, Jia et al. ( 2016 ) found different results, in which, also through preference surveys, identified that extroverted people are driven by points, levels, and ranking. Jang, Park, and Yi ( 2015 ) found that users with low agreeableness who used a non-gamified version of a system had lower learning rates than those who used the gamified one.

The previously found results were crucial for the conceptual comprehension of the effect of gamification on personality, but they were only based on users’ opinions, obtained through questionnaires and in a short time. It is essential to conduct experiments to verify the real effects of gamification in learning environments and over a long duration.

In this study, we aimed to study whether the gamification affects students differently depending on their personality traits. More specifically, we aimed to investigate whether distinct components of gamification affect students’ learning, their programming attitudes (trial and error behavior in the programming tasks submission for correction), and engagement depending on their personality traits (extroversion, openness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness) in the context of programming learning. Personality traits were selected because there is a lack of empirical studies in real environments that target this topic, and the results of the formal works are an open question. In our work, the effects of gamification for different personality traits were investigated with an empirical experiment in a real learning environment over a longer interval of time (four months). We examined participants’ engagement and behavior by their activities logs on the educational system and their learning by knowledge tests.

This work is an extended version of our paper published on ICALT 2019 ( Smiderle et al. 2019 ). Differently from ICALT paper, in which we have focused only on the extroversion trait, in the present article, we also explore how the other personality traits (openness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness) interfere in the impact of gamification elements on students’ learning, engagement, and programming behavior.

Participants

The participants were universities student from two first-semester classes in a Computing course at a private university in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. In total, 48 students aged between 17 and 34 years old (M =21, DP =3.74), 38 boys, and ten girls, were invited at the beginning of the semester for participation. Consent forms were delivered for all students, who agreed to join in the experiment, to sign. Only the information of the students who fulfilled the personality trait questionnaire (43 students) and agreed to participate by returning the content form (41 students) was considered at the end of the experiment, totalizing 40 students (7 girls and 33 boys). At the beginning of the experiment, the teachers explained to the students that their participation in the experiment was voluntary; they could quit at any moment, and this would not change their final grade in the class.

We verified the change in engagement by the number of logins, badges, points, and also the number of visualizations of the gamification elements. The grades in the course exams served to evaluate learning. The programming behavior was measured by the accuracy of the solutions submitted by students for programming exercises. Accuracy is the result of the total number of correct solutions divided by the total number of solutions sent. It represents the student care before submitting a solution, being the opposite of trial and error behavior, in which the student sends different solutions repeatedly until success, without seriously reflecting on them, only to get the system feedback.

Personality questionnaire - iGFP-5

To determine students’ personalities, we have used the IGFP-5. IGFP-5 is a self-reported measure composed of 44 items and designed to evaluate the personality dimensions based on the Big Five Personality Factors model (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) ( de Andrade 2008 ). It was validated for Brazil through a sample of 5,089 respondents from the five Brazilian regions, 66.9% female, and 79.0% higher education. According to Andrade ( 2008 ), individuals with high scores in Openness are generally outspoken, imaginative, witty, original, and artistic. Conscientious individuals are generally cautious, trustworthy, organized, and responsible. Extroverted individuals tend to be active, enthusiastic, sociable, and eloquent or talkative. People with high scores in agreeableness are pleasant, lovely, cooperative, and affectionate. Neurotic individuals are usually nervous, highly sensitive, tense, and concerned.

BlueJ and feeper

Feeper Footnote 1 is a web-based system designed to assist students and teachers in programming classes. In the environment, the teacher can provide programming exercises, which can be solved by students, and automatically corrected by an Online Judge integrated on the platform. It matches the output of the learners’ program with the output of an ideal solution provided by the teacher for a given input. It uses rules previously registered by the teacher also to give some feedback for the students based on the output of their code. A significant advantage of this type of environment is that it reduces the teacher’s burden because it corrects the exercises automatically, allowing the teacher to concentrate their efforts on students who are struggling with the tasks.

BlueJ is a free Java Development Environment designed for beginners to learn the basics of programming ( Bluej 2019 ).

In our work, the teacher recommended students to write their code at BlueJ, which has a more straightforward interface for beginners. After solving the task on BlueJ, students should submit the final solution to Feeper to get the correction and error-feedback. Only Feeper was gamified in this study, and it was used by students to verify their progress.

System logs and grades

The information extracted from Feeper through the use of the environment consisted of the number of: logins, correct and wrong exercises, badges and points obtained, and challenges completed. We also analysed the number of users’ views of the elements ranking, badges, and points. The number of badges view is different from the number of badges obtained. When we counted the number of views, we were analyzing how interested the student was in this element. A student can get many badges because she accomplished the activities successfully due to her interest in the topic, even if she is not interested in getting badges. The same is true for the Points and Ranking.

During the semester, students accomplished three exams as part of their formal evaluation process of the class. Grade A was delivered in the middle of the semester; it was comprised of problems related to topics seen until it. Grade B was the last exam, delivered at the end of the semester. When students were not able to achieve the minimum score, they could improve their grade with Grade C, which was delivered two weeks after Grade B. In this work, grade A contributed to check students’ performance in programming before gamification switching on in the experimental group. The participants completed the IGFP-5 personality questionnaire and were randomly distributed into two groups, the control and the gamified. At the end of the semester, they took the final exam.

Gamification in feeper

The gamification elements implemented on Feeper for this study are points, badges, and ranking, described below. The only difference between the gamified and non-gamified versions of Feeper is that participants in the non-gamified version cannot see the gamification elements, but internally the system still scores points and badges. This score allows us to compare whether students be able to see the gamification elements engage them.

Points appear to participants in two different parts of the system. When students are completing a programming task, they can see how many points they could earn if they solve it successfully. When the solution is incorrect, the score is decreased by five points for each submission (the students can lose a maximum of 70 points for each task). Students can also view their score histories for the solved exercises and the points previously earned. Students were warned that the scores obtained in the exercises would not affect their final grade on the course.

Nine distinct badges were granted to users by obtaining specific objectives, with three degrees (gold, silver, bronze), totalizing 27 badges. Badges were granted for students who have achieved a specific sum of logins, correct assignment, submitted assignments, submitted assignments with no errors, daily activity, and for whom have concluded challenges and were top of the class and the platform.

The ranking is the sum of all points earned by students for all assignments solved. There are two distinct rankings available. The ranking of the class shows the participants with the best scores in the class; its goal is to promote local objectives for students. The second one is the general ranking, which contrasts the scores of all students of the platform who have used Feeper.

Experimental design

This experiment followed an experimental design consisting of two groups, control (21 participants) and experimental groups (19 participants), for which the students were randomly assigned with the only restriction of having the same number of participants initially in both groups. Table  1 shows the number of participants for each personality trait in each group (gamified and non-gamified).

Students in the control group used the original non-gamified version of Feeper, while learners in the experimental group used a gamified version of Feeper with points, badges, and ranking. All students started using the non-gamified variant of Feeper, and only in the second half of the semester (after the first exam, grade GA), students in the experimental group began to use the gamified version.

This type of design allows us to examine the effects of gamification on personality traits using both controlling conditions: the participant with himself (a within-subject design, by comparing the performance and engagement of students of the experimental group before and after Grade GA) and by comparing control and experimental groups after Grade GA. At the end of the semester, students completed the final exam (Grade B), involving all the content of the course. Figure  1 illustrates the phases of the experiment.

The experiment design

Some students have reported that they noticed their version of Feeper was different from the one used by a nearby colleague (they were able to notice the presence of points and ranking). When this occurred, teachers only reported that some new features were being tested in Feeper and were only available to some participants.

The experiment was realized in the second part of 2018 and had a period of four months. The participants had class once a week, and each class had two hours and 38 minutes of duration. Students used Feeper in all classes, except for the first class, the three classes in which the teacher delivered the exams (Grade A, Grade B, and Grade C), and one class of topic review, totalizing 15 classes solving program tasks using BlueJ and Feeper.

In the first week of class, the teacher presented to the students the organization and some introductory notions of computer organization. In the second week, the teacher presented to students the Feeper and BlueJ environments (“ Materials ” section). Introductory tasks were given for the students to get used to both learning environments.

From the third week onward, students realized four exercises in each class: a worked example, two activities that were part of the final grade, and an optional exercise. The teacher began each class by solving a worked example step-by-step to teach the students how to solve a programming task involving the same concepts to be worked in the class.

Students then solved two other programming tasks with the same difficulty level as the example worked and using the same programming concepts. The students’ grade was composed of these two tasks accomplishments (20%) and the score on the exams (80%). In addition to being part of the grade, these tasks served to identify students’ difficulties. The optional task was an extra activity with greater difficulty and with the possibility of additional grade. The goal was to challenge the students and also verify their engagement as it was optional.

Results and analysis

This section presents the results found in this study. We conducted a Shapiro-Wilk test to verify the normality of the data. For the data that followed a normal distribution, we conducted a t-test to compare means. We also calculated the effect size for all tests, which is a simple way to quantify the difference between two groups, through the Cohen d effect. For data with non-normal distributions, we applied a Wilcoxon rank-sum test to compare means. The effect size of non-normal data was calculated by dividing the z value by the square root of the number of participants, as described by Mann-Whitney ( Pallant 2010 ).

Table  2 shows the results of the evaluation comparing the experimental and control groups. The level of significance was set at a <0.05 with 95% confidence interval. Only statistically significant results are shown.

Participants who used the gamified environment had a higher average of points, badges, and the number of logins than participants of the non-gamified group. However, no statistically significant results were found to show that the gamified group was more engaged than the non-gamified group. Regarding the grades, both groups had a reduction from grade GA to grade GB, which is usual in this class as grade GB has more content and is more difficult than GA.

The gamified system can change student behavior. Gamified group participants had a significant improvement in the quality of the submitted solutions, having obtained more accuracy (number of correct solutions sent, divided by the total number of solutions sent), when comparing Grade A and Grade B. In the literature, it is possible to find papers that reported improved performance of the gamified group by increasing the score, ( Krause et al. 2015 ) and decreasing unwanted behaviors ( Pedro 2016 ). Another work that studied the effects of gamification on the performance of users on tagging pictures ( Mekler et al. 2017 ) has found an increase in the number of tag annotations, but without resulting in improved tag quality.

Each personality trait was verified individually. Introverted participants (in both experimental and control groups) had a higher number of points, medals, and logins than extroverted. A statistically significant difference was found in the number of points and ranking visualization between the introvert and extrovert gamified groups, thus indicating a divergence on how users with different personality traits receive the gamification effect. In addition, a statistically significant difference was found in the accuracy gain of the introvert participants in the gamified group.

Regarding the personality trait neuroticism , no differences were observed between the gamified and non-gamified groups. However, it can be noted that in both groups, people with high neuroticism had a higher number of logins. About the personality trait conscientiousness , students of the non-gamified group with low conscientiousness obtained the lowest number of points when compared to the other groups.

The correlation of all personality traits and the variables was calculated and showed in Fig.  2 . They were used to identify the relationship between the dependent variables (engagement, learning, programming behavior) and personality traits. A correlation is considered strong when the Pearson coefficient is higher than 0.7, moderate when it is between 0.5 and 0.7, and weak when it is lower than 0.5.

Correlogram for the relationship between all variables of the experiment

Regarding the number of points obtained, a moderate negative correlation ( r =−0.52, p =0.01) was identified with the extroversion personality trait for the gamified group. For the nongamified group, a weak positive correlation between the points and the conscientiousness personality trait ( r =+0.41, p =0.01) was found.

Regarding the number of badges obtained, a moderate negative correlation was found with the extroversion personality trait ( r =−0.52, p =0.01).

Concerning the accuracy after the grade GA, for the gamified group, a moderate negat ive correlation was found with the extroversion trait ( r =−0.57, p <0.01) and a weak negative correlations with the openness trait ( r =−0.42, p =0.05). A positive weak correlation was found with the conscientiousness trait ( r =0.3, p =0.18). For the non-gamified group, a moderate positive correlation was identified between accuracy after GB and the conscientiousness personality trait ( r =0.5, p =0.02).

We also analyzed the correlation between the engagement of students in the gamified group with the different gamification elements (points, medals, and ranking). About the number of ranking views, we observed a strong negative correlation with the extroversion trait ( r =−0.79, p <0.01), and also a weak negative correlation with agreeableness trait ( r =−0.48, p =0.02).

Each trait was verified individually. Introverted participants in both control and experimental groups had a higher number of points, badges, and logins. A statistically significant difference was found in the number of points and ranking views between the introvert and extrovert students who used the gamified version, thus indicating that there is a difference between how different users with different personality traits receive the effect of gamification. In addition, a statistically significant difference was found in the accuracy gain of the introverted participants who used the gamified version.

This result partially matches with the results found in ( Codish and Ravid 2014 ), that detected a negative effect of the ranking on extroverted participants and positive and not significant in introverted participants; extroverts preferred badges. However, unlike our work ( Jia et al. 2016 ) found that extroverts tend to be more motivated by points, levels, and ranking.

Regarding neuroticism , no differences were observed between the gamified and non-gamified groups. Overall, in both groups, neurotic participants had more logins. People with high neuroticism tend to be more worried and insecure, which, possibly, makes them check the platform more often for new exercises.

Regarding the grades , the gamified group with high agreeableness had the lowest grade reduction (the difference between GB and GA), while the non-gamified group with low agreeableness had the lowest grade reduction. Related to this personality trait, ( Jang et al. 2015 ) found that users with low agreeableness in the non-gamified group had lower learning rates than those in the gamified group, thus being more useful to these users. Differently from the mentioned work, we have not found any evidence that gamification improves learning for the students with low agreeableness.

About the conscientiousness personality trait, in both gamified and non-gamified groups, the high conscious participants were more accurate in solving the exercises, and only the low conscious students who used the non-gamified system had accuracy decreased. This decrease was significant, and thus it is possible to observe that the loss of accuracy of the non-gamified group came from low conscientious participants. A possible explanation is that people with this personality trait are more careless and negligent.

Limitations of study

When the user fills out a personality trait questionnaire, it has a score (a value ranging from 5 to 25) across five different personality traits. For example, a score on the extroversion trait means that the person tends to be more extroverted or introverted. An important issue is which score to use to classify someone as extroverted or introverted. As our sample was relatively small (only 40 participants), we have classified the participants using the median. This procedure was a provisional measure, and we intend to use a more reliable method for classifying participants in the next works. A trustworthy possibility in a larger sample would be to check only the extremes individuals of each personality trait.

Another limitation to the validity of the results is the representativeness of the sample since all participants who joined the study are from the same university, most of them young males. Therefore, it is not reasonable to generalize the results for the whole student population. Statistically, it can be solved with the replication of this experiment in distinct samples of undergraduate students.

The results were obtained through an empirical experiment involving programming tasks. It is also necessary to replicate the study for other domains such as mathematics, physics, etc.

Conclusions

This article aimed to contribute to the understanding of how gamification affects participants differently depending on their characteristics. More specifically, we investigated the effects of points, ranking, and badges in the engagement, learning, and behavior programming of students based on their personality traits. To achieve this goal, we have conducted an empirical experiment with 40 undergraduate students enrolled in a programming class who used two different versions of a programming learning environment: a gamified one and a non-gamified.

The results showed a change in the behavior of the gamified group showing a significant improvement in the accuracy of students with personality traits with low agreeableness, low openness, and introverts who used the gamified version in the second half of the course. A reduction during the semester (GA/GB) for accuracy was also verified for students with low conscientious personality who used the non-gamified system, while, in the gamified group, this reduction has not occurred, indicating that gamification may help these groups. Introverted students who used the gamified version were more engaged than extroverted students for the same version. We have also found a strong negative correlation between the extroversion trait and the number of ranking views, indicating that gamification in general and, especially the ranking element, is more beneficial to introverts.

This work contributes to the understanding of how gamified environment systems affect users based on their characteristics. Specifically, it contributed to the comprehension of how gamification affects the engagement and learning behavior of university students based on their personality traits. Future research could study the effect of gamification in various disciplines over a more extended period. It could help to verify whether, over time, gamification loses its effectiveness, to identify possible saturation points and limitations in its application.

Availability of data and materials

The first and last authors store the datasets. However, the Informed Consent Form that was used does not allow the distribution of the data fully.

http://feeper.unisinos.br/

Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J.A., Gonçalves, D.J. (2014). Relating gaming habits with student performance in a gamified learning experience. In Proceedings of the first ACM SIGCHI annual symposium on Computer-human interaction in play - CHI PLAY ’14 . https://doi.org/10.1145/2658537.2658692 . ACM, (pp. 17–25).

Bluej (2019). Bluej. https://www.bluej.org/ . Accessed 16 Jan 2019.

Borges, S.d.S., Reis, H.M., Durelli, V.H., Bittencourt, I.I., Jaques, P.A., Isotani, S. (2013). Gamificação aplicada à educação: um mapeamento sistemático. In Brazilian Symp. on Computers in Education . https://doi.org/10.5753/cbie.sbie.2013.234, (Vol. 24. Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, p. 234).

Christy, K.R., & Fox, J. (2014). Leaderboards in a virtual classroom: A test of stereotype threat and social comparison explanations for women’s math performance. Computers & Education , 78 , 66–77.

Article   Google Scholar  

Codish, D., & Ravid, G. (2014). Personality based gamification-educational gamification for extroverts and introverts. In CHAIS Conference for the Study of Innovation and Learning Technologies, vol. 1 . https://www.openu.ac.il/innovation/chais2014/download/E2-2.pdf , (pp. 36–44).

de Andrade, J.M. (2008). Evidências de validade do inventário dos cinco grandes fatores de personalidade para o Brasil. PhD thesis, Universidade de Brasília. https://repositorio.unb.br/handle/10482/1751 .

Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 14 (1), 9.

Fardo, M.L. (2014). A gamificação como estratégia pedagógica: estudo de elementos dos games aplicados em processos de ensino e aprendizagem. Master’s thesis, Universidade de Caxias do Sul. https://repositorio.ucs.br/handle/11338/457 .

Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychol. assessm. , 4 (1), 26.

Haaranen, L., Ihantola, P., Hakulinen, L., Korhonen, A. (2014). How (not) to introduce badges to online exercises. In ACM Tech. Symp. on Computer Science Education . https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538921 . ACM, (pp. 33–38).

Hakulinen, L., & Auvinen, T. (2014). The effect of gamification on students with different achievement goal orientations. In 2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE) . https://doi.org/10.1109/latice.2014.10 . IEEE, (pp. 9–16).

Hanus, M.D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamif. in the classroom. Computers & Education , 80 , 152–161.

Jang, J., Park, J.J.Y., Yi, M.Y. (2015). Gamification of online learning. In: Conati, C., Heffernan, N., Mitrovic, A., Verdejo, M.F. (Eds.) In Artificial Intelligence in Education . Springer, Cham, (pp. 646–649).

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Jia, Y., Xu, B., Karanam, Y., Voida, S. (2016). Personality-targeted gamification: a survey study on personality traits and motivational affordances. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’16 . https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858515 . ACM.

Knutas, A., Ikonen, J., Nikula, U., Porras, J. (2014). Increasing collaborative communications in a programming course with gamification: a case study. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies . https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2659620 . ACM, (pp. 370–377).

Krause, M., Mogalle, M., Pohl, H., Williams, J.J. (2015). A playful game changer: Fostering student retention in online education with social gamification. In ACM Conf. on Learning@ Scale . https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2724665 . ACM, (pp. 95–102).

Mekler, E.D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A.N., Opwis, K. (2017). Towards understanding the effects of individual gamific. elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. Comput. in Human Behav. , 71 , 525–534.

O’Donovan, S., Gain, J., Marais, P. (2013). A case study in the gamification of a university-level games development course. In Proceedings of the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference on - SAICSIT ’13 . https://doi.org/10.1145/2513456.2513469 . ACM, (pp. 242–251).

Pallant, J (2010). Spss survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using spss. Open University Press.

Pedro, L.Z. (2016). Uso de gamificação em ambientes virtuais de aprendizagem para reduzir o problema da externalização de comportamentos indesejáveis. PhD thesis, Universidade de São Paulo. https://teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/55/55134/tde-08122016-170652/publico/ LaisZagattiPedro_revisada.pdf .

Smiderle, R., Marques, L., M., C.J.A.P.D., Rigo, S., Jaques, P. (2019). Studying the impact of gamification on learning and engagement of introverted and extroverted students. In 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) . https://doi.org/10.1109/icalt.2019.00023 . IEEE.

Tvarozek, J., & Brza, T. (2014). Engaging students in online courses through interactive badges. In 2014 International Conference on e-Learning, September 2014, Spain . https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fe68/5176c8d4bf7f6507f3870815f56a65097c89.pdf , (pp. 89–95).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was financed in part by the CAPES (graduate student scholarship), FAPERGS (granting 17/2551-0001203-8), and CNPq (granting 309218/2017-9) from Brazil.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centro de Educação (UFAL) e Núcleo de Excelência em Tecnologias Sociais - NEES (UFAL), Maceió, Brazil

Leonardo B. Marques

Faculdade de Medicina (Famed/Ufal) e Laboratório de Computação Científica e Análise Numérica (LaCCAN/Ufal), Maceió, Brazil

Jorge Arthur Peçanha de Miranda Coelho

Programa de Pós-graduação em Computação Aplicada (PPGCA) - University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS), São Leopoldo, Brazil

Rodrigo Smiderle, Sandro José Rigo & Patricia A. Jaques

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have had a scientific contribution in this manuscript, with the first and last authors contributing the most to the design, implementation, analysis, and write up of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia A. Jaques .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Smiderle, R., Rigo, S.J., Marques, L.B. et al. The impact of gamification on students’ learning, engagement and behavior based on their personality traits. Smart Learn. Environ. 7 , 3 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0098-x

Download citation

Received : 06 September 2019

Accepted : 15 November 2019

Published : 09 January 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0098-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Gamification
• Personality
• Programming Environment

MINI REVIEW article

Gamification as online teaching strategy during covid-19: a mini-review.

• 1 Department of Psychology, University of Almería, Almería, Spain
• 2 Center for Neuropsychological Assessment and Neurorehabilitation (CERNEP), University of Almería, Almeria, Spain

The ongoing pandemic caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has enforced a shutdown of educative institutions of all levels, including high school and university students, and has forced educators and institutions to adapt teaching strategies in a hasty way. This work reviews the use of gamification-based teaching during the pandemic lockdown through a search in Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Semantic Scholar databases. A total of 11 papers from Chemistry, Business, Computer Science, Biology, and Medical areas have been identified and included in the present work. All of them analyzed the use of gamification strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed student’s learning and motivation outcomes. In general, students reported that gamification was innovative, engaging, and an efficient strategy to deliver curricula material; moreover, it was perceived as a fun activity. Some students reported that gamified videoconferences aided to connect with their classmates during isolation time providing effective social support. However, some students reported a bad physical or psychological condition, as consequence of the confinement, and did not get involved in the activity. Some weaknesses of the reviewed studies are the small sample size and its homogeneity, which makes it difficult to generalize their results to other scenarios and academic areas. Furthermore, although there is a feeling of learning during the activity, this result is mainly based on subjective perceptions, and any of the studies demonstrated that superior learning was achieved in comparison with traditional teaching strategies. Nevertheless, gamification can be implemented together with traditional lectures and can be a valuable instrument during post-COVID times.

Introduction

In a time disrupted by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the development of educational tools compatible with social distancing has become a fundamental strategy as millions of students are confined to reduce the spread of the epidemy. Thus, almost all teaching has quickly transitioned to distance education in order to provide appropriate social distancing ( Johnson et al., 2020 ). Although social distancing has been accompanied by online interactions, it has been possible thanks to the continuous advances in digital technologies. Technology also gives the student much access to information and promotes the creation and sharing of knowledge, but it requires educators to work to find ways of increasing students’ motivation and engagement. Thus, a great amount of work has also been devoted to develop new teaching strategies that enhance students’ motivation and commitment and maximize their knowledge acquisition. Among different strategies, gamification has attracted the interest of educators, who in the last times have been exploring its potential to improve student learning ( Dichev and Dicheva, 2017 ; Majuri et al., 2018 ; Koivisto and Hamari, 2019 ). Studies about the effectiveness of gamification are promising, with variable to positive results ( Caponetto et al., 2014 ; Majuri et al., 2018 ; Osatuyi et al., 2018 ; Koivisto and Hamari, 2019 ).

Although “game” is an ambiguous term and different game formats have been used by researchers and educators ( Hanghøj, 2013 ), gamification can be defined as the use of game elements in non-entertainment contexts to promote learning. The fact that games have many elements that are naturally appealing for young and adults and have a strong influence in their lifestyle helps to introduce an extra motivation for learning. Over the last decade, gamification is being increasingly employed in learning environments as a way to enhance students’ motivation and encourage social interaction. Thus, games have been employed in many educational contexts across different educational levels, showing its potential to improve learning outcomes ( Seaborn and Fels, 2015 ; Koivisto and Hamari, 2019 ). The symbiosis between gaming and learning is also evidenced by the progressive development of best practices for courses gamification and game design. Usually, the game (course) is designed to progressively introduce new concepts to be mastered; students must then apply these concepts to increasingly challenging problems and ultimately apply prior knowledge to new situations ( Varonis and Varonis, 2015 ). Another reason for including game elements in education is that it has been reported that games can provide social links ( Waytz and Gray, 2018 ), promote knowledge seeking ( Toh and Kirschner, 2020 ), develop creativity ( Vartanian and Beatty, 2015 ), improve mental health ( Cruea, 2020 ), and reduce isolation ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2009 ).

There exist several types of games and gamification strategies. Quizzes are one of the simplest ways to gamify teaching, allowing students to test their knowledge on different platforms, such as web-based quizzes or apps. In recent years, educators have developed thousands of electronic quizzes as apps to assist students in many areas. Additionally, different strategies have been employed: the challenge-, the immersion-, and the social-based gamification. The first strategy is based on overcoming challenges ( Majuri et al., 2018 ; Koivisto and Hamari, 2019 ). The second model attempts to immerse the user into a story and is characterized by its audiovisual richness ( Concannon et al., 2019 ). Finally, social-based games permit to develop strategies of competition and collaboration ( Romero, 2017 ).

Gamified activities have been linked to enhancing students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In this line, the self-determination theory places the focus on three basic psychological needs: autonomy, relatedness, and competence ( Richter et al., 2015 ). Thus, gamification must fulfill at least one of them. Another theory that has been associated with gamification is the goal-setting theory. According to this theory, there are four factors linked to students’ performance: their commitment toward the goal, the feedback they receive, the complexity of the activity, and the situational constraints ( Locke and Latham, 2002 , 2006 ; Landers, 2014 ). According to this theory, gamification would require a challenge, an indication of progress, some feedback, levels of achievement, and a sort of competition ( Huang and Hew, 2018 ). The third theory related to gamification is flow theory, where an optimal psychological and physical state maximizes enjoyment and engagement. According to this theory, gamification requires specific and understandable goals, immediate feedback, achievement indicators, and an adequate balance between challenges, student’s skills, and perceived value of the activity ( Huang and Hew, 2018 ).

Thus, according to the goal-setting and flow theories, besides designing applications with capability to increase students’ motivation, teachers must also consider the special difficulties that their students face during confinement. Therefore, they can use gamification to mitigate physical and psychological constraints associated with a situation of quarantine. Furthermore, not all students have high-tech devices or appropriate internet connection at home, which restrict the generalized adoption of gamification for distance learning situations, as has been observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in developing countries and rural areas.

This work is aimed at reviewing the published experiences of gamified learning in secondary school and university education during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will describe the gamification strategy, the methodologies used during the COVID-19 pandemic, and its motivational and educational outcomes. Finally, we also pretend to analyze the theoretical base of these gamification strategies and how they have helped to ameliorate the situation of the students from a physical and psychological situation.

Gamification Case Studies in COVID-19 Times

Although there exists previous evidence about the use of online tools and games in education, the number of studies using gamified strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic is scarce. There are, however, a large number of publications describing research proposals, protocols, and expert opinions regarding the implementation of digital tools in education. The sudden development of the COVID-19 outbreak made it difficult to plan empirical studies that tested the use of gamified tools, with the majority of educators doing huge efforts to move from a face-to-face classroom environment to online lectures through videoconferencing tools.

In the present work, a non-systematic search for terms included in the title, abstract, or keywords using the following syntax [(“distance” OR “remote”) AND (“teaching” OR “learning” OR “education”) AND (“covid” OR “pandemic”) AND “gam ∗ ”] has been carried out. The search was done on February 28, 2021 for studies published between January 2020 and February 2021 in Scopus (46 results), PsycINFO (2 results), ERIC (1 result), and Semantic Scholar (1,450 results) databases. Only research articles and conference papers describing a gamified practice in a learning environment have been included. Studies not written in English, reviews, surveys, and opinion papers that did not carry out any gamified practice have been excluded. A total of 11 studies that met these eligibility criteria have been included and reviewed here. The studies reviewed correspond to the following areas of knowledge: Chemistry, Business, Computer Science, Biology, and Medical education. A summary of the reviewed studies is shown in Table 1 .

Table 1. Articles included in the review: objectives, methodology, and outcomes.

Chemistry Learning

Organic Chemistry is considered a difficult subject for secondary school and undergraduate students, being organic reactions are one of the most difficult topics in Organic Chemistry ( Eticha and Ochonogor, 2015 ). Previous studies show that when learning activities of chemistry concepts are combined with games in the classroom, students’ motivation increases ( Stringfield and Kramer, 2014 ) improving their performance ( Liberatore, 2011 ; Revell, 2014 ) and making them more engaged compared with traditional methodologies ( Sousa Lima et al., 2019 ; da Silva et al., 2020b ).

da Silva et al. (2020a) designed an interactive game-based application (Interactions 500) aimed to help students review concepts related to intermolecular forces in a collaborative environment. This game was originally designed to be used by students in the classroom; however, the interruption of face-to-face classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic required to use it remotely. Forty-four pharmacy undergraduate students (11 groups) played the game remotely. A student got the role of a leader who was in charge of coordinating the game, motivating their mates, discussing answers, and clarifying doubts. In the game, there was a competition among students who had to answer different quiz questions. The students rated the game very positively through a Likert-type survey with regard to its design, content, game play, and usefulness as educational tool. The authors compared the knowledge of a group of 44 students who played the game with regard to another group (N = 40) who were not exposed to it and studied alone at home. Both groups showed similar marks in the pretest and the post-test and the same level of learning. Therefore, the authors concluded that the game resulted in similar learning outcomes to traditional problem-solving classes, although only the game created a pleasant learning environment, so all the students who played the game reported that they preferred it with regard to regular problem-solving classes.

Fontana (2020) developed a gamified activity based on ChemDraw (a software designed for drawing molecules) with the aim of making students get practice using this tool. Thus, students had to compete in a tournament. The idea was that it would maintain the classroom community, improve students’ wellness, and develop their organic chemistry skills. Videoconferencing software (Zoom) was used to enable real-time classroom participation. Nine students participated in the molecule speed-drawing tournament (Molecule Madness). A molecule’s chemical structure was posted to the class learning platform, and for each match, two students had to share their screens with the class and compete to correctly draw its structure first in ChemDraw. Non-participating students followed the tournament as active observers (social spectators), socially engaging with fellow observers and learning from contenders. Students competed to correctly draw molecular chemical structure, where advanced rounds presented molecules progressively more difficult to draw. By playing ChemDraw, students reported wellness experiences comparable with playing traditional videogames: enjoyed practicing, felt expectancy for the coming class activity, and connected with their classmates. They also described Molecule Madness as a fun way to learn organic chemistry, practice ChemDraw, and promote high levels of excitement and engagement. According to the author, postpandemic chemistry education will likely include some distance gaming elements that will enhance face-to-face teaching.

Chemistry crosswords have been used for a long time, and their effectiveness has been described as a tool for leaning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pearson (2020) used crossword puzzles as a model of remote active learning for first- and second-year undergraduate pharmacy students. Chemistry-themed crossword puzzles were delivered via the eBlackboard site and used to supplement lectures and problems content. This activity started before the lockdown, so the author compared students’ behavior before and during the lockdown, with no clear differences between both periods. When analyzing students’ exam performance with and without crossword aids, no significant differences were observed in the mean and median cohort exam grades (compared with a cohort from the previous academic year). However, more students responded to the question (from a choice of four) taught alongside online crossword exercises. The author suggested that the crossword activity instilled greater confidence to answer a question when it had been included in the crossword exercises. Moreover, a larger percentage of students got higher marks in their exam after crossword exposure compared with the previous academic year, in the absence of the crosswords. The author suggested that the crossword impacted the exam performance for at least more engaged students. Around 50% of first-year students and 80% of second-year students reported that this activity was helpful and would welcome more. Moreover, in an online survey, 20.4% of the students rated quizzes and puzzles as the best remote teaching tool second only to instructional videos (46.3%).

The author proposed that, looking ahead, these puzzles should be delivered in a more interactive online format and provide instant feedback. Moreover, for optimum student engagement and learning improvement, instructors could design crosswords that help students identify key topics and concepts. Finally, another approach would be that the students create their own crosswords.

The COVID-19 pandemic learning disruption has seriously affected interactive and hands-on experiences in laboratories. Thus, D’Angelo (2020) developed a series of five exercises, called “Labventures,” mimicking the principle of “Choose your own adventure” books or escape rooms. The exercises were created to review/reinforce several tasks, and 24 students took part. Labventures stories were set up as a series of webpages, and the students should complete a laboratory task choosing proper techniques. After every incorrect response, the students were given feedback explaining why a choice was wrong, whereas correct choices moved the activity forward. However, the analysis of students’ execution indicated a low performance and understanding of the activities. The author proposed some improvements for future versions of these exercises, including pictures or videos, providing more data to encourage problem solving, using a notebook quiz, and giving further information after wrong choices.

In all the works, a small number of participants with reduced heterogeneity of the samples were included. In the case of da Silva et al. (2021) , 44 pharmacy undergraduate students were included. In the studies done by D’Angelo (2020) and Fontana (2020) , all the students belonged to the same classroom, whereas 132 first-year and 120 second-year undergraduate pharmacy students participated in the study of Pearson (2020) . Nevertheless, the main weakness comes from the predominant use of subjective procedures to assess learning outcomes.

Business Studies

Pakinee and Puritat (2021) investigated the effect of gamified and non-gamified learning for an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) course to motivate the students to engage and participate during working from home. Thus, two versions of an e-learning platform were developed, one implementing game elements (avatars, challenges, levels, points, progress bar, and leaderboard) and another one without game features (just the exams and course materials). Furthermore, in their study, the authors considered students’ personality traits (Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Imagination/Openness). A test before and after each chapter and web monitoring of students’ activity provided quantitative data about their performance. According to the results, the gamified e-learning group showed higher engagement during the first 2 weeks, but then it started to drop, and at the fourth week, both groups had equaled their activity. The authors referred that the gamification strategy increased students’ activity in the short term but not in the long term. Another activity record showed that gamification motivated students to start working during the first days a lesson was available, whereas the non-gamified group delayed their activity to the end of the week. Nevertheless, there was no statistical evidence to support any differences in learning between the non-gamified and gamified groups.

According to the authors, gamification cannot improve the overall knowledge because it has positive and negative impacts on each personality type. Thus, some personality traits were linked to higher scores for the gamified e-learning because they are more prone to competition, whereas others reported a negative effect from competition. The authors affirmed that gamification in the ERP course can improve students’ motivation, although the fun and curiousness related to gamification are short-lived. They recommend adding new small tasks of game elements every 2–3 weeks until the end of the course, concluding that gamification of e-learning alone serves as a tool to engage students in distance learning, but in order to enhance learning, the presence of a lecturer is also required.

This work has the merit of including students’ personality traits as a research variable. Thus, it can provide some cues about how to design more personalized gamification strategies according to participant’s personality. Furthermore, it has compared the efficiency of gamified and non-gamified options. However, it has some limitations, for instance, the research was conducted only in one course (ERP) and the limited number of participants per group.

Computer Science Learning

Lelli et al. (2020) addressed the concept of Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) as a temporary shift of teaching in crisis circumstances and involves the use of fully remote teaching solutions. The authors described a gamification methodology for two Computer Science courses by using ClassCraft, a free educational platform from Google that works as a virtual classroom. This platform allows the teacher to assign tasks to the students and enables the use of asynchronous (forums, videos) and synchronous tools (chats) and a score based on the accomplishment of the tasks. A number of modules (missions) with different tasks were defined according to the courses content, and game levels for each module were set as students progressed through tasks.

The authors stated that the use of this gamification tool was effective to engage the students during the pandemic. Some students pointed out gamification as a positive experience to learn remotely. However, the number of students who participated in the remote activities decreased after some time, with some students reporting no physical and psychological conditions or interest in following the gamification activities. The authors also observed that students had difficulties to understand the purpose of using asynchronous tools, such as forums.

In another work, Liénardy and Donnet (2020) provided to first-year Computer Science students a set of gamified homework exercises, they called GameCode, aimed at teaching an appropriate methodology for programming. The exercises were inspired by GameBooks in which the reader can choose the path to complete the story. Students could choose their own solving path for each exercise and do it at their own pace. Any GameCode exercise met the following requirements: (a) each exercise was self-sufficient and contained the minimal information to complete it; (b) theoretical reminders were needed and were as short as possible; (c) hints never revealed the solution, nor a part of it; and (d) several solutions were always possible and could be discussed in the course forum. However, the authors reported that few students took part in the exercises, as many students had abandoned their courses, supposedly a consequence of the loss of motivation by the COVID-19 lockdown. Half of students who did the activity informed that they liked it, but 43% declared that they would have preferred podcasts.

In both studies, the reduced number of participants can be considered a serious weakness. In the study by Lelli et al. (2020) , the use of a free platform will allow other researchers to replicate the same protocol in different courses. However, in both cases, the participation was lower than expected, which demonstrates a lack of motivation and engagement. Similar outcomes were obtained by Liénardy and Donnet (2020) . In both cases, the authors explained the low participation as a consequence of the physical and psychological effects of COVID-19 confinement.

Biology Studies

Teaching biology is particularly challenging if the students are not allowed to access laboratories for hands-on observation of fresh specimens and the lockdown restricted movement outside students’ home. Lobet et al. (2020) developed a biological treasure hunt activity for 346 first-year biology students by using QuoVidi, an open-source web-based platform. This platform was conceived to teach biological vocabulary and to observe the surrounding natural world. Students received a list of quests that addressed botanical and zoological terms. Students should understand the meaning of the quest and go out to get photos of plants and animals that should be uploaded to the platform. Due to movement limitations during the lockdown, there was the option of learning from photos submitted by other students (photography quiz). In this case, they had to match the submitted photos with their quest. Students showed a good performance as the majority of pictures submitted in the treasure hunt activity were correct. Nevertheless, performance was less accurate for the photography quiz, probably due to different levels of engagement. Regarding students’ feedback, 91% reported to like the activity and have learned from it, although there were two main criticisms, that the activity took so much time and some students had the feeling that they did not truly learn. The authors addressed these points by proposing a better tailoring of the activity and a better communication with the students about the pedagogical goal of the activity.

One strong point of this activity is its scalability, so hundreds of students can be involved. Furthermore, according to students’ feedback and performance, it was motivating and engaging in learning a list of technical vocabulary. Nevertheless, the photography quiz, included as a response to the lockdown, resulted in a worse performance compared with the hunting activity. Thus, it would be essential to redesign the photography quiz in order to make it more engaging and efficient.

Medical Education

COVID-19 has challenged medical educators on continuing to provide quality educational content. O’Connell et al. (2020) described a novel virtual game for obstetrics and gynecology teaching. The game consisted of several rounds of rapid-fire questions and cases, eliminating teams to a final contest. All residents participated individually in a previous “warm-up” round, using a Kahoot quiz to test their knowledge of ultrasound imaging. The residents were divided into small groups and placed into a breakout room with a faculty facilitator who then divided their residents into two teams of three to four residents. The two teams then competed in the breakout room for the first three rounds. Each round focused on testing the team’s knowledge of a different aspect of obstetric and gynecological care. The fourth and final round was a series of three cases in which the remaining teams were given a case and they had to write down their proposal for how each case should be managed. The fourth round was judged by the faculty facilitators. At the end of the game, 23 out of the 36 residents completed an anonymous online survey. A large majority of the residents enjoyed the activity. Ninety-five percent of the residents were in agreement or strong agreement that they were engaged during the activity. Seventy-four percent were in agreement or strongly agreed that this activity was better than traditional lectures. Therefore, the majority of the residents found this activity to be educational, entertaining, engaging, and better than the traditional lecture format.

Medical students usually learn clinical reasoning through “whole-case” conferences. However, this procedure has many challenges in social distancing scenarios. Thus, although videoconferencing tools allow some interaction, audience engagement and active participation are limited. Kobner et al. (2020) have described a novel case conference format to train clinical reasoning skills to a spatially distant audience. In their work, the authors describe a gamified serial-cue, low fidelity simulation in which a team of residents must analyze a real case that challenges their clinical reasoning skills. The case includes all relevant diagnostic results, including several elements that challenge clinical reasoning abilities. The team of residents plays through a simulated tabletop version of the case live on a videoconference call. The case flow is facilitated by a chief resident familiar with serial-cue tabletop simulations and gaming procedures. A simulated cardiac monitor provides vital signs to the team and the virtual audience, and as team members ask for diagnostic studies, the facilitator provides them through Dropbox to the team and the audience. At the conclusion of the case, a debriefing was conducted. After this, a spontaneous discussion ensued, covering themes ranging from diagnostic decision to patient safety and foundational medical knowledge. Finally, a sample of simulation participants, the virtual audience, and residency program administrators were interviewed. All simulation participants felt that the tabletop simulation improved their clinical reasoning abilities in ways that mimicked real clinical encounters. They reported that the level of unpredictability helped to model the actual practice of emergency medicine, adding a level of excitement absent from typical mock oral boards-type tabletop simulations. Audience members agreed that they were more engaged throughout the case simulation than during traditional case conferences. Residency program administrators noted increased faculty engagement and discussion when compared with traditional case conferences. Finally, interviewees suggested that this experience would benefit from more gamification throughout the simulation.

Telesimulation can be employed to deliver hands-on training that usually takes place in in-person simulation. In order to assess if it can be effective to teach anesthesiology trainees to manage a complex case-based scenario, Patel et al. (2020) developed a remote high-fidelity immersive case-based scenario for anesthesiology residents training. For this, the authors adapted an existing simulation scenario based on a real clinical case. Fifty-eight residents were scheduled to participate remotely via Zoom meetings. For each session, a group of 6–8 residents participated in the simulation (a total of 8 sessions were carried out), whereas 4 faculty anesthesiologists were present in the simulated operating room with a manikin. Using Zoom’s share screen feature, images of the operating room and a manikin vital signs were monitored. The residents were asked to respond to the scenario and verbalize all the actions that they would perform in a real-life situation. An anesthesiologist present in the operating room performed actions based only on instructions from the residents’ team. Just before and after the simulation, participants’ medical knowledge was assessed through an online exam, and a satisfaction survey was conducted at the end of the activity.

Overall, telesimulation resulted to be effective at increasing residents’ knowledge as their score was superior in the post-test. They also rated the experience positively and informed that it could be a reasonable substitute for in-person learning. Nevertheless, the authors pointed out the importance of using small group sizes (3–5 students are the typical number for traditional simulations), assigning roles to participants, and using intermittent reflective pauses.

The main weakness of these studies is the small number of participants, and that they are based on a single-center study. Moreover, only students’ attitude was evaluated in O’Connell et al. (2020) and Kobner et al. (2020) , and there are no results about the educational efficacy of the activity. Patel et al. (2020) conducted pre- and post-assessment of residents’ medical knowledge; however, there was no comparison for knowledge gains in telesimulation versus traditional simulation setups.

In recent years, several innovations have emerged in the field of education. In an age disrupted by COVID-19, the development of gamified teaching strategies can be seen as a promising option to provide knowledge and enhance students’ collaboration during social distancing. Thus, although traditional scholarly academic curricula are content-focused and essentially ignore personal development, some gamification literature suggests that collaborative activities can stimulate motivation and enhance learning ( Rutledge et al., 2018 ). All the studies described here aimed at enhancing learning by improving participants’ motivation and engagement. Some studies have used a pre-existing platform that has been gamified, but there are also some experiences in which a gamified application has been developed on purpose by the authors. In most of the cases, the gamified activity was well-received by learners, considered effective, educational, and engaging, and in some cases also fun.

One of the findings of this review is that most of the gamification experiences have been developed in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines. This could be the consequence of the difficulties to carry out laboratory and hands-on practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, which particularly have affected these fields. Nevertheless, the efforts to introduce teaching innovations that help to overcome social distancing shortcomings have led teachers to improvise activities along the way. In many cases, this has been associated with a poor planning of the gamified environment, together with the ad hoc use of gaming elements mechanics with unclear guidelines for students. Thus, some of the studies included in the review ( D’Angelo, 2020 ; Lelli et al., 2020 ; Liénardy and Donnet, 2020 ) showed little or no participation by students. According to the authors, such apathy would be associated with a decreased intrinsic motivation related to the pandemic situation. At least in these cases, the employed gamification strategy did not result in efficient tool for engaging students.

Although any of the reviewed studies have implemented a theoretical framework behind their gamification strategy, most of them have reported an increase of learning and/or motivation. Game elements associated with competition, such as leaderboards and points, have been the most common ones, resulting in higher levels of engagement and learning outcomes, with similar results being reported in simulation procedures and quizzes. Only one study used puzzles, reporting moderate results, whereas those that employed escape rooms and gamebooks resulted in negative outcomes.

It has been stated that competition elements affect extrinsic motivation in students mainly, without increasing intrinsic motivation ( Erdogdu and Karatas, 2016 ). However, most of the reviewed studies have reported a sense of enjoyment and positive feelings toward learning, which are directly related to intrinsic motivation ( Bai et al., 2020 ). Thus, all the reviewed studies that reported positive emotions associated with intrinsic motivation, even when external elements were employed (competition elements), referred to increased motivation, engagement, and/or learning outcomes. Thus, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation would correlate and show common properties as stated by the Self-Determination Theory ( Ryan and Deci, 2002 ). However, some studies ( D’Angelo, 2020 ; Lelli et al., 2020 ; Liénardy and Donnet, 2020 ) reported low motivation, engagement, and/or bad performance. In order to increase the interest and motivation of students, they should receive continuous support from the teaching staff, and the aim of the activity should be clear for all them.

Gamification procedures allowed to monitor students learning progress in a non-invasive way, for instance, tracking students’ behavior in the web platform, or their achievements in the game. Other strategies to gather information about students’ perception of their own progress relied on the use of questionnaires and interviews. However, some works have attempted to assess students’ learning through their performance in exams. In general, the reviewed studies have combined quantitative and mixed methods to assess students’ learning and engagement (see Table 1 ). In general, most of the reviewed works came to the conclusion that gamification resulted in learning outcomes. In some cases, this statement was a subjective perception of participants obtained through questionnaires, whereas other works performed objective tests to assess students’ knowledge. For instance, da Silva et al. (2020a) , Pakinee and Puritat (2021) , and Patel et al. (2020) compared students’ performance in pre- and post-exams, whereas Pearson (2020) compared exam scores with regard to previous year scores, showing an increase of students’ knowledge following gamified activities. However, there is no evidence indicating that gamification yields better learning outcomes than could be obtained with more traditional strategies. Furthermore, one study ( Pakinee and Puritat, 2021 ) reported that gaming elements linked to competition resulted in controversy and did not produce the same effect in all students, and in some cases, they could increase or decrease motivation according to the student’s personality.

Social interaction is considered one of the foundations of gamification ( Sánchez-Martín et al., 2017 ). All the studies were conducted in a time of limited social interaction; however, only Fontana (2020) had as a main goal to enhance students’ well-being and promote social interaction. The author reported an increase of class community, showing that the gamification strategy was useful to keep class morale during social distancing time.

According to the works reviewed, it is possible to infer that gamification can be effectively combined with traditional teaching methods, such as online lectures, in order to enhance students’ engagement and deliver curricula material that usually is taught through face-to-face education. Likely, technology-enhanced learning initiatives will become more prominent as the education landscape is reorganized following COVID-19, and gamification may therefore be considered as an option to augment traditional learning no longer deliverable at traditional face-to-face classes. It can be also incorporated into academic programs currently limited to videoconference lectures to boost students’ engagement and motivation.

There are, however, some weaknesses that must be taken into account. The reviewed studies are mainly a single-center study with data from single classroom groups, resulting in a relatively low number of participants, which restricts the generalization of their results. Furthermore, all studies included had a short-term format. Thus, longitudinal studies are required to determine the efficacy of gamification as teaching strategy. Nevertheless, the main limitations are the lack of an objective assessment of learning as result of the gamified activity and the lack of a theoretical framework. Although some studies ( Lobet et al., 2020 ; Patel et al., 2020 ) reported that the students’ knowledge improved after the activity, there was no direct comparison with conventional teaching scenarios. Only Pakinee and Puritat (2021) compared the performance of their students in both situations, showing that gamification made students start working earlier, but there were no differences on their performance in the long term. This could indicate that gamification can open a more efficient time window during online learning. Therefore, the main conclusions of the reviewed studies are based on the subjective perception from participants: “a fun way to learn” or “feeling to have learned.” In some cases, this drawback resulted from the sudden lockdown imposed by the authorities, so teachers had to design and adapt their courses along the way.

We must remark that during the COVID-19 lockdown, many students faced increased demands at home, many had to bring together their studies with their job activities, caring for children during the day, along with an increase of academic online activities. Furthermore, some students and teachers could be resistant to implement a game as an educational tool as it is a new way of learning and teaching quite different from the traditional classes. It is also important that there is a good communication between teachers and students, so the pedagogical aim of the activity becomes clear.

Finally, it is important to bear in mind that there are many examples of trendy “gamechangers” in education that have varied greatly over time. Problem-based learning, for instance, once a main educational strategy in some curricula, and social media-based learning have lost part of their interest after a time of apogee ( Guckian and Spencer, 2018 ). It is essential that educational innovations have a solid foundation on research data. In the case of gamification as an educational strategy, future research must address different aspects, such as game mechanics and elements, in relation to an underlying theoretical framework.

Author Contributions

FN-E and MR-T conceived the present work, did the literature search, wrote the manuscript, and revised and verified the final version. Both authors have read and accepted the content of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Bai, S., Hew, K. F., and Huang, B. (2020). Does gamification improve student learning outcome? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts. Educ. Res. Rev. 30, 100322. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Caponetto, I., Earp, J., and Ott, M. (2014). Gamification and education: A literature review. 8th European Conference on Games Based Learning (Academic Conferences International Limited). 50–57. Available online at: https://www.itd.cnr.it/download/gamificationECGBL2014.pdf (accessed December 25, 2020).

Google Scholar

Concannon, B. J., Esmail, S., and Roberts, M. R. (2019). Head-Mounted Display Virtual Reality in Post-secondary Education and Skill Training. Front. Educ. 4:80. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00080

Cruea, M. (2020). “Gaming the Mind and Minding the Game: Mindfulness and Flow in Video Games,” in Video Games and Well-Being , ed. R. Kowert (Macmillan: Palgrave), 97–107. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-32770-5_7

da Silva, J. N. Jr., de Sousa Oliveira, J. M., Winum, J. Y., Melo Leite, A. J. Jr., Alexandre, S. O. F., do Nascimento, D. M., et al. (2020a). Interactions 500: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Hybrid Board Game for Aiding Students in the Review of Intermolecular Forces During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Chem. Educ. 97, 4049–4054. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01025

da Silva, J. N. Jr., Zampieri, D., de Mattos, M. C., Duque, B. R., Junior, A. J. M. L., de Sousa, U. S., et al. (2020b). A hybrid board game to engage students in reviewing organic acids and bases concepts. J. Chem. Educ. 97, 3720–3726. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00614

da Silva, J. N. Jr., Zampieri, D., de Mattos, M. C., Ribeiro Duque, B., Melo Leite, A. J. Jr., Silva de Sousa, U., et al. (2021). A hybrid board game to engage students in reviewing organic acids and bases concepts. J. Chem. Educ . doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00240

D’Angelo, J. G. (2020). Choose Your Own “Labventure”: a click-through story approach to online laboratories during a global pandemic. J. Chem. Educ. 97, 3064–3069. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00715

Dichev, C., and Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 14, 9. doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5

Erdogdu, F., and Karatas, F. O. (2016). “Examining the effects of gamification on different variables in science education,” in Proceedings of the 2016 Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Yılı Anısına Uluslararası Türk Dünyası Eğitim Bilimleri ve Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi , (Antalya). doi: 10.30703/cije.321389

Eticha, A. T., and Ochonogor, C. (2015). “Assessment of undergraduate chemistry students’ difficulties in organic chemistry,” in Proceedings of the ISTE International Conference on Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2015 , (Kruger National Park).

Fontana, M. T. (2020). Gamification of ChemDraw during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Investigating How a Serious, Educational-Game Tournament (Molecule Madness) Impacts Student Wellness and Organic Chemistry Skills while Distance Learning. Chem. Educ. 97, 3358–3368. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00722

Guckian, J., and Spencer, J. (2018). #SixSecondStudying: the rise and fall of Vine in MedEd. Clin. Teach. 16, 164–166. doi: 10.1111/tct.12913

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hanghøj, T. (2013). “Game-based teaching: practices, roles, and pedagogies. in New Pedagogical Approaches,” in New Pedagogical Approaches in Game Enhanced Learning: Curriculum Integration , eds S. de Freitas, M. Ott, M. M. Popescu, and I. Stanescu (Hershey PA: IGI Global), 81–101. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3950-8

Huang, B., and 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. Comput. Educ. 125, 254–272. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.018

Johnson, H., Cuellar Mejia, M., and Cook, K. (2020). COVID-19 Shutdown Forces Colleges to Ramp up Online Learning. Available online at: https://www.ppic.org/blog/covid-19-shutdown-forces-colleges-to-ramp-up-online-learning/ (accessed December 22, 2020).

Kobner, S., Grassini, M., Le, N.-N., and Ridell, J. (2020). The Challenging Case Conference: A Gamified Approach to Clinical Reasoning in the Video Conference Era. West J. Emerg. Med. 22, 136–138. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2020.12.49133

Koivisto, J., and Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: a review of gamification research. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 45, 191–210. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013

Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a Theory of Gamified Learning. Simul. Gaming 45, 752–768. doi: 10.1177/1046878114563660

Lelli, V., Andrade, R. M. C., Freitas, L. M., Silva, R. A. S., Gutenberg, F., Gomes, R. F., et al. (2020). “Gamification in remote teaching of se courses: experience report,” in Proceedings of the 34th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering , (New York, NY: ACM), doi: 10.1145/3422392.3422497

Liberatore, M. W. (2011). Improved student achievement using personalized online homework. Chem. Eng. Educ. 45, 184–190.

Liénardy, S., and Donnet, B. (2020). “GameCode: Choose your Own Problem Solving Path,” in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research ICER ’20 , (New Zealand), doi: 10.1145/3372782.3408122

Lobet, G., Descamps, C., Leveau, L., Guillet, A., and Rees, J. F. (2020). QuoVidi: An open-source web application for the organization of large-scale biological treasure hunts. Acad. Pract. Ecol. Evol. 11, 3516–3526. doi: 10.1002/ece3.7130

Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. Am. Psychol. 57, 705–717. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (2006). New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 15, 265–268. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x

Majuri, J., Koivisto, J., and Hamari, J. (2018). “Gamification of education and learning: a review of empirical literature,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International GamiFIN Conference, GamiFIN 2018, CEUR-WS , (Finland).

O’Connell, A., Tomaselli, P. J., and Stobart-Gallagher, M. (2020). Effective Use of Virtual Gamification During COVID-19 to Deliver the OB-GYN Core Curriculum in an Emergency Medicine Resident Conference. Cureus. 12, e8397. doi: 10.7759/cureus.8397

Osatuyi, B., Osatuyi, T., and de la Rosa, R. (2018). Systematic review of gamification research in is education: a multi-method approach. CAIS 42, 95–124.

Pakinee, A., and Puritat, K. (2021). Designing a gamified e-learning environment for teaching undergraduate ERP course based on big five personality traits. Educ. Inf. Technol. 15, 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10456-9

Patel, S. M., Miller, C. R., Schiavi, A., Toy, S., and Schwengel, D. A. (2020). The sim must go on: adapting resident education to the COVID-19 pandemic using telesimulation. Adv. Simul. 5, 26. doi: 10.1186/s41077-020-00146-w

Pearson, R. J. (2020). Online Chemistry Crossword Puzzles prior to and during COVID-19: Light-Hearted Revision Aids That Work. J. Chem. Educ. 97, 3194–3200. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00645

Revell, K. D. (2014). A comparison of the usage of tablet PC, lecture capture, and online homework in an introductory chemistry course. J. Chem. Educ. 91, 48–51. doi: 10.1021/ed400372x

Richter, G., Raban, D. R., and Rafaeli, S. (2015). “Studying gamification: the effect of rewards and incentives on motivation,” in Gamification in Education and Business , Vol. 201, eds T. Reiners and L. Wood (Cham: Springer), 21–46. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_2

Romero, M. (2017). “Competitive, collaborative, and cooperative play,” in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Out-of-School Learning , ed. K. Peppler (New York NY: SAGE Publications, Inc), 115–116. doi: 10.4135/9781483385198.n51

Rutledge, C., Walsh, C., Swinger, N., Auerbach, M., Castro, D., Dewan, M., et al. (2018). Gamification in action. Acad. Med. 93, 1014–1020. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002183

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2002). “Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective,” in Handbook of Self-Determination Research eds E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press) 3–33.

Sánchez-Martín, J., Cañada-Cañada, F., and Dávila-Acedo, M. A. (2017). Just a Game? Gamifying a General Science Class at University: Collaborative and Competitive Work Implications. Think. Ski. Creat. 26, 51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.05.003

Seaborn, K., and Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: a survey. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 74, 14–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006

Sousa Lima, M. A., Monteiro, A. C., Melo Leite, A. J. Jr., de Andrade Matos, I. S., Alexandre, F. S. O., Nobre, D. J., et al. (2019). Game-based application for helping students review chemical nomenclature in a fun way. J. Chem. Educ. 96, 801–805. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00540

Stringfield, T. W., and Kramer, E. F. (2014). Benefits of a game-based review module in chemistry courses for nonmajors. J. Chem. Educ. 91, 56–58. doi: 10.1021/ed300678f

Toh, W., and Kirschner, D. (2020). Self-Directed Learning in Video Games, Affordances and Pedagogical Implications for Teaching and Learning. Comput. Educ. 154, 103912. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103912

Valkenburg, P., and Peter, J. (2009). Social Consequences of the Internet for Adolescents: A Decade of Research. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18, 1–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01595.x

Varonis, E. M., and Varonis, M. E. (2015). Deconstructing Candy Crush: What Instructional Design Can Learn From Game Design. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 32, 150–164. doi: 10.1108/IJILT-09-2014-0019

Vartanian, O., and Beatty, E. (2015). Cognitive brain training, video games, and creativity. Video Games and Creativity 2015, 185–198. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-801462-2.00009-6

Waytz, A., and Gray, K. (2018). Does Online Technology Make Us More or Less Sociable? A Preliminary Review and Call for Research. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 473–491. doi: 10.1177/1745691617746509

Keywords : gamification, videogame, simulation, COVID-19, distance learning, motivation, student satisfaction, engagement

Citation: Nieto-Escamez FA and Roldán-Tapia MD (2021) Gamification as Online Teaching Strategy During COVID-19: A Mini-Review. Front. Psychol. 12:648552. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648552

Received: 31 December 2020; Accepted: 14 April 2021; Published: 21 May 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Nieto-Escamez and Roldán-Tapia. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Francisco Antonio Nieto-Escamez, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Our Mission

Using Gamification to Ignite Student Learning

Gamification taps into the power of noncompetitive play and students’ desire to improve their skills.

In the business world, gamification is used in customer loyalty programs for credit cards and memberships: Spend money and invest time in the business’s app and products to earn discounts and status upgrades. Everyone benefits at their own pace.

In education, gamification is intended to transform traditional lessons into an enhanced learning experience where students choose to explore and practice content, earning badges and status benefits. These might seem extrinsic, but the true rewards come from the students’ internal drive to study content, gain depth of understanding, and master material that leads to badges, achievements, and status.

Success comes not from the rewards, but from how the learning journey is crafted for students to travel. Combining game mechanics with intentional exploration of aligned content will result in students’ participating willingly.

3 Keys to Quality Gamification Experiences

1. Every student can reap the rewards of badges, achievements, and status by completing all required tasks. Gamification provides powerful experiences that are noncompetitive play to facilitate learning. Students invest time in and outside the classroom to complete the challenges, such as doing extra readings, video viewings, and practice activities. The more time spent and/or content consumed can only improve depth and breadth of students’ knowledge and skill mastery. Such investment by all students is time well spent and should be rewarded with badges and work-related status.

Limiting access to awards to just one winner or the top finishers undermines the underlying intent of gamification: all students growing content knowledge and skills through active participation. It’s more important to have as many students as possible benefit at their own pace and build learning and self-accomplishment. Allowing only a few to earn rewards demotivates students who either believe that they cannot compete or experience frustration at having invested time toward the goal, only to fall short because someone else edged them out. When the focus is on who wins, learning by all becomes the biggest loser.

2. Gamification offers renewable status and privileges through self-directed learning. Some say that giving out rewards for doing work creates the wrong type of motivation, whereby students become more focused on the treats and prizes than on the learning. This issue is dependent on a combination of the type of work students must do and the rewards that are earned. Gamification uses badges and achievements to encourage students to complete meaningful tasks that improve their content knowledge and skill levels. The tasks must align with the curriculum expectations.

Status and privileges earned should relate to empowering student agency about their approach to learning. The following are some examples:

• Study passes: Choosing where they sit or access to study in the hallway, library, or other school locations can be a powerful reward. For specific lesson activities, students earn the right to pick their work environment and choice of partner. In the latter case, they can only choose from students who have also completed this badge.
• Homework passes: When students have invested additional study time into a subject, they may not need to do additional formal practice. This pass is only good for the current unit. Or they earn the ability to complete a comprehensive study packet that covers all material to be addressed and bypass some of the standard homework.
• Opting out of a test: Similar to curriculum compacting, this enables students to complete alternative work. The tasks are specifically aligned to the unit outcomes and give students a different way to show their learning. Students complete a badge where they demonstrate strong organizational and self-discipline skills.

All such badges and achievements must be renewed each marking period or semester. Once earned, these statuses are privileges that can be removed if abused. If they are lost, students may reapply by completing the tasks toward earning back the status, which demonstrates responsibility and accountability.

3. Gamification promotes goal setting and student agency. If we want students to own their learning, they need opportunities to choose the badges and achievements they want to complete. Renewable options empower students to explore which options appeal to them. There should be a series of tasks that composes the badge or achievement, including some options where they can choose the pathway that appeals to them.

For example, earning a homework pass might include readings, videos, and skill practice from which they choose from a list of what to complete. The study pass may require a written or recorded reflection about the importance of acting responsibly when in the hallway or study location outside of the classroom. The power of options empowers students to make the best choice that suits them and holds them accountable for their choices.

Gamification can have a greater impact on learning than even its cousin game-based learning. Whereas a game can have a valuable impact in one lesson activity, gamification done well is infused throughout the entire lesson and/or unit of study. It maximizes participation because everyone can win.

Gamification empowers students with the ultimate in choices when setting goals for what badges and achievements they want to complete, which leads to learners building skills for self-reliance and self-control. You can explore more mechanics for implementing gamification here . Game on!

• Review article
• Open access
• Published: 20 February 2017

Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review

• Christo Dichev 1 &
• Darina Dicheva   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5590-0282 1  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  14 , Article number:  9 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

170k Accesses

481 Citations

161 Altmetric

Metrics details

Gamification of education is a developing approach for increasing learners’ motivation and engagement by incorporating game design elements in educational environments. With the growing popularity of gamification and yet mixed success of its application in educational contexts, the current review is aiming to shed a more realistic light on the research in this field by focusing on empirical evidence rather than on potentialities, beliefs or preferences. Accordingly, it critically examines the advancement in gamifying education. The discussion is structured around the used gamification mechanisms, the gamified subjects, the type of gamified learning activities, and the study goals, with an emphasis on the reliability and validity of the reported outcomes. To improve our understanding and offer a more realistic picture of the progress of gamification in education, consistent with the presented evidence, we examine both the outcomes reported in the papers and how they have been obtained. While the gamification in education is still a growing phenomenon, the review reveals that (i) insufficient evidence exists to support the long-term benefits of gamification in educational contexts; (ii) the practice of gamifying learning has outpaced researchers’ understanding of its mechanisms and methods; (iii) the knowledge of how to gamify an activity in accordance with the specifics of the educational context is still limited. The review highlights the need for systematically designed studies and rigorously tested approaches confirming the educational benefits of gamification, if gamified learning is to become a recognized instructional approach.

The idea of incentivizing people is not new but the term “gamification” didn’t enter the mainstream vocabulary until 2010. Only a year later it became a viable trend. The growing popularity of gamification is stemming from the belief in its potential to foster motivation, behavioral changes, friendly competition and collaboration in different contexts, such as customer engagement, employee performance and social loyalty. As with any new and promising technology it has been applied in a diversity of domains, including marketing, healthcare, human resources, training, environmental protection and wellbeing. Gamification is a multidisciplinary concept spanning a range of theoretical and empirical knowledge, technological domains and platforms and is driven by an array of practical motivations (Seaborn & Fels, 2015 ). In an attempt to best capture the essence of the underlying concepts and practices, the term gamification has been defined in several ways, such as “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011 ), “the phenomenon of creating gameful experiences” (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014 ), or “the process of making activities more game-like” (Werbach, 2014 ). Empirical work across disciplines has begun to explore how gamification can be used in certain contexts and what behavioral and experiential effects gamification has on people in the short and long terms.

Ever since its advent gamification has sparked controversy between game designers, user experience designers, game theorists and researchers in human-computer interaction (Mahnič, 2014 ). This controversy is reflected also in some scientific studies of gamification, which show that its effect on motivation or participation is lower than the expectations created by the hype (Broer, 2014 ). Even so, substantial efforts have sought to take advantage of the alleged motivational benefits of gamification approaches.

One key sector where gamification is being actively explored (mainly for its potential to motivate) is education. Motivation is among the important predictors of student academic achievements, which influences the effort and time a student spends engaged in learning (Linehan, Kirman, Lawson, & Chan, 2011 ). Given that games, known to engender motivation and engagement, are notably popular, the proposal to incorporate game mechanics and principles to motivate the learner is appealing. Gamification in education refers to the introduction of game design elements and gameful experiences in the design of learning processes. It has been adopted to support learning in a variety of contexts and subject areas and to address related attitudes, activities, and behaviors, such as participatory approaches, collaboration, self-guided study, completion of assignments, making assessments easier and more effective, integration of exploratory approaches to learning, and strengthening student creativity and retention (Caponetto et al. 2014 ). The rationality at the basis of gamifying learning is that adding elements, such as those found in games to learning activities will create immersion in a way similar to what happens in games (Codish & Ravid, 2015 ). This leads to the belief that by incorporating game mechanics in the design of a learning process, we can engage learners in a productive learning experience, and more generally, change their behavior in a desirable way (Holman et al. 2013 ). Yet, the design of successful gamification applications in education that can sustain the intended behavior changes is still more of a guessing practice than science. This fact is in line with the Gartner Hype Cycle (Gartner, 2013 ), a research methodology that outlines a technology’s viability for commercial success, which points out that an emerging technology first climbs the ‘peak of inflated expectations’ followed by a subsequent strong fall down into the ‘trough of disillusionment’, before reaching the ‘slop of enlightenment’, which marks the stage where its benefits and limitations are understood and demonstrated.

The Gartner model is intended for representing the level of maturity and adoption of certain emerging technologies. We maintain the view that gamification is not just a technology but also a methodology which some organizations adopt as way to increase motivation. In this aspect, gamification is not a purely marketing trend but a behavioral/affective design trend that can be applied to different areas, including education. As such, gamification is also a growing area of research. However, research efforts and trends should be driven and evaluated based on distinct factors. Thus Gartner’s model is used here metaphorically and as a comparison model. We borrow it to illustrate observed trends in emerging research areas, demonstrating some sorts of ‘peaks of inflated expectations’ and ‘enlightenments’.

In 2014 we conducted a systematic mapping study of the empirical research published between January 2010 and June 2014 intended to recognize the emerging trends within the area of applications of gamification to education and to identify patterns, educational contexts and configurations of used game elements (Dicheva et al. 2015 ). For classifying the research results, the study used a categorical structure (based on the topics discussed in the reviewed papers) including game elements, context of the application of gamification, gamification implementation and evaluation. Although most of the reviewed 34 papers have been reporting promising results, the review concluded that more substantial empirical research is needed to determine whether both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation of the learners can be actually influenced by gamification. Given the exponential growth of publications on gamification, a year later we conducted a follow-up study covering the period July 2014–December 2015. Our goal was twofold: from one side, to complement the previous study and compare it with the findings derived from the papers published within the last year, and from another, to identify any shifts and new trends in this evolving field. The results from that review were published in (Dicheva and Dichev 2015 ).

In terms of the Gartner’s hype cycle, our first review (Dicheva et al. 2015 ) covered works from the rise-in-expectations period of gamification, where the reported outcomes of the early empirical work were often influenced by the hype prompting desire to demonstrate that gamification is an effective tool for motivating and engaging learners in educational contexts. We believe that the progress in the research, including educational research, unlike technological evolutions should differ from the Gartner’s hype cycle and evolve independently of media attention using instead scientific indicators for recognizing promising trends and thus minimizing inflated expectations. More importantly, the research efforts should be directed at understanding the phenomenon triggering the new interest and at generating evidence for or against the trend causing that interest. This suggests that the research should progress following a pattern different from the Gartner’s hype cycle and marked by stages, such as early studies, emerging research area, research topics formation, etc. In this sense, our second review was intended to take another snapshot in an attempt to verify this view. Despite the growing body of studies, we found the level of understanding of how to promote engagement and learning by incorporating game design elements to be questionable. In parallel, a significant part of the empirical research was nonetheless reporting success stories and possibly contributing to the ‘inflated expectations’. Because the empirical studies (on gamification) explore the unknown, uncertainty is an unavoidable part of the investigations. While the publication of valid and reliable studies reduces the uncertainty and adds to the knowledge on gamifying education, thus helping to shape future research in the field, invalid or unreliable findings obscure our understanding of the studied phenomenon. In this context and unlike the systematic mapping studies, the goal of this critical review is to see how the new studies are shaping the evolving research in educational gamification. In particular, compared to the previous reviews the focus here is shifted to analyzing and critically appraising the collected evidence from the latest empirical research with the aim of distinguishing facts from hypotheses or opinions. From this perspective, the present review adds to the first two by trying to subject educational gamification research to similar standards as in social or health sciences.

Accordingly, in this article the focus is on analyzing the understanding of the motivational mechanisms provided by gamification in educational settings and its impact on learning. The guiding questions in this context were:

What empirical evidence exists for the impact of gamification on motivational processes and effectiveness of learning?

What is the level of progress towards a systematic understanding of how to use gamification in educational contexts?

With the growing popularity of gamification and yet mixed opinions about its successful application in educational contexts, the current review is aiming to shed a more realistic light on the research in this field focusing on empirical evidence rather than on potentialities, beliefs and preferences.

On the technical side, the article includes several tables that summarize and add to the information provided in the text. The article also includes two appendices that summarize the relevant features of the reviewed studies.

Search strategy and sources

In search for empirical research papers, that is, papers based on actual observations or experiments on educational gamification, we searched the following databases: Google Scholar, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Explore and ScienceDirect using the following search terms: (gamification OR gamify OR gameful) AND (education OR learning OR training) AND (since 2014). In the cases when the OR option was not available in the provided Boolean search functionality, an equivalent search strategy was carried out through multiple searches with alternative terms. This search yielded a total of 4998 results depicted in Table  1 . We have chosen the definition of (Deterding et al., 2011 ) for gamification (“the use of game design elements in non‐gaming contexts”) to measure each found publication for relevance. Accordingly, publications discussing full-fledged games were filtered out. Peer-reviewed empirical research papers where no findings were reported were also excluded. For example, purely descriptive papers such as (Morrison & DiSalvo, 2014 ), which describes the implementation of gamification within Khan Academy, were not included. At the end of this step, all papers that appeared in the review presented in (Dicheva et al., 2015 ) were also filtered out. The review was restricted to papers appearing in the searched databases between June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2015. The result was a list of 51 empirical research papers. In sum, in the past one and a half years, several hundred articles pertaining to gamification in education have been published however only 51 studies met our criteria and are reviewed in this article.

For completeness of the review of the research in the field, we decided this time to include also theoretical papers dealing with gamification in education. Following (Seaborn & Fels, 2015 ), the “theoretical papers” category includes papers that propose an explanation of the underlying nature of gamification in education and such that propose relevant pedagogies or test already existing explanatory models from other domains with respect to gamification. We also added the published literature reviews to the group of theoretical papers. The end result was a list of 11 theoretical papers appearing in the searched databases between June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2015. Thus the final number of selected papers (empirical and theoretical) amounted to 63 in total. The last column of Table  1 shows the results after filtering out irrelevant papers and removing duplicates. For comparison, the total number of papers included in the previous review covering the period January 2010–June 2014 was 34.

Following the division empirical studies vs. theoretical papers, the first part of this review covers the published empirical research on the topic, while the second part surveys briefly publications targeting theoretical aspects of educational gamification.

Data extraction

A literature survey typically employs a framework for structuring the evaluation of the works in the targeted area. This framework captures the potential properties of interest and enables a comparison of the surveyed works and drawing meaningful conclusions. The use of gamification in learning involves a number of aspects, including game elements, educational context, learning outcomes, learner profile and the gamified environment. Gamification is receiving attention, particularly for its potential to motivate learners. Accordingly, our objective involving evaluation of the level of understanding of the motivational impacts of gamification in educational contexts has shaped our decision of what categories of information to be included in the framework for evaluating the surveyed works. More specifically, we looked for information that can facilitate the process of identifying and analyzing the empirical evidence demonstrating the motivational effects of gamification. Motivation as a psychological process that gives behavior purpose and direction is contextual. Not only are individuals motivated in multiple ways, but also their motivation varies according to the situation or context of the task. To provide support for analyzing the contextual aspect, the information collected from the studies include the educational level, academic subject, and type of the gamified learning activity. We also included the used game elements, mechanics and dynamics since they are inherently related to the success of a gamification application. A number of motivation measures have been used in attempts to establish the effect of gamification on student motivation. In addition to appropriate measures, the verification of the validity of reported results requires availability of relevant statistical information about the studies. In order to provide support for our decision on how conclusive the reported results of a study are, we added the following categories: study sample, study duration, method of data collection, and outcome. Thus the final structure of information to be derived from the reviewed studies included the following categories: game elements, educational level, academic subject, learning activity, study sample, study duration, data collection, and outcome.

Appendix 1 presents a description of the reviewed papers structured according to this framework. Obviously, the task of representing high-dimensional data in a table format is challenging, which implies a tradeoff between completeness and clarity.

Review results for empirical studies

For a systematic presentation of the review results we classify and interpret them in accordance with the described above framework.

What educational level is targeted?

Considering the educational level, the bulk of gamification studies in the survey period were conducted at university level (44 papers), with less attention to K-12 education (7 papers). At university level, 1 study has reported results involving graduate students (Nevin et al., 2014 ), while at K-12 level, 3 studies have reported results involving elementary school students (Boticki, Baksa, Seow, & Looi, 2015 ; Simoes, Mateus, Redondo, & Vilas, 2015 ; Su & Cheng, 2015 ) , 2 studies have reported results involving middle school students (Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015 ; Long & Aleven, 2014 ) and 2 studies have reported results involving high school students (Davis & Klein, 2015 ; Paiva, Barbosa, Batista, Pimentel, & Bittencourt, 2015 ). A possible explanation of this disproportion is that perhaps it is easier for college instructors to experiment with using gamification in their own courses. This might be because they are better supported technically or have necessary computer-related skills, which allow them to implement some gamification features, e.g. an electronic leaderboard. Studies involving different demographic groups however are beneficial, as we cannot necessarily generalize the results of a study conducted with one demographic group to another demographic group.

What subjects are gamified?

The collection of papers covers a wide range of academic subjects (32) organized in six categories (see Table  2 ). The category “Others” includes studies with unspecified subjects, where the gamified activities are independent of a subject and the focus is on: the platform supporting gamification (Barrio et al., 2015 ; Chang & Wei, 2015 ; Davis & Klein, 2015 ; Lambruschini & Pizarro, 2015 ; Mekler et al., 2015 ), the game elements used (Boticki et al., 2015 ; Pedro et al., 2015a ), a personal learning environment (Morschheuser et al., 2014 ), measurements (Simoes et al., 2015 ) or learners’ personalities (Tu et al., 2015 ).

One emerging area which is not an academic subject in its own but rather referring to a set of tools offering new affordances for enhancing students’ understanding of dynamic processes and systems is interactive simulations (dynamic computer-based models which can help students observe or interact with scientific phenomena). Although gamifying the use of such simulations can help overcome the problems with insufficient motivation and engagement, there is a lack of studies evaluating the effects of gamified simulation-based learning. In this context, the work of Bonde et al. ( 2014 ), who studied the effect of combining gamification elements with simulations for improving learning effectiveness and motivation of biotech students addresses a critical gap. The results show that a gamified laboratory simulation can increase both learning outcomes and motivation levels when compared with traditional teaching. Further research is needed to examine whether these results can be extrapolated to a general tendency of the effectiveness of gamified simulations.

As shown in Table  2 , the vast majority of gamification studies are dealing with Computer Science (CS) and Information Technology (IT). This fact provokes the question: Are CS and IT more suitable to gamification than the other subjects? The present studies however do not provide conclusive answer to this question. In the lack of other evidences, speculative answers can be given similar to the ones for the observed disproportion in gamifying college vs. school level activities, namely that perhaps it is easier for CS and IT instructors to experiment in their own courses. In sharp contrast, gamification experiments targeting activities related to disciplines from humanity and social sciences are extremely limited, with only one example (Holman et al., 2015 ) touching this subject. Another interesting observation is the low proportion of studies on gamifying STEM disciplines, excluding CS/IT and mathematics, where reinforcement of motivation is particularly beneficial: only two out of thirty two (Bonde et al., 2014 ) and (Su & Cheng, 2015 ).

What kind of learning activities is targeted?

Formal learning typically involves a mix of instructional activities and supporting materials, such as lectures, tutorials, assignments, projects, labs, exercises, class discussions and team work. A sizable part of the papers (16) studied gamification of courses as a whole, which implies gamifying a range of learning activities. Half of these are studies of gamified online courses (Amriani et al., 2014 ; Bernik et al., 2015 ; Jang et al., 2015 ; Krause et al., 2015 ; Leach et al., 2014 ; Sillaots, 2014 ; Utomo & Santoso, 2015 ), while the remaining part are regular courses typically with web-based learning support. Online learning normally requires stronger motivation, which makes it a somewhat more promising field for applying gamification. Although this presumes a higher concentration of studies on gamified online learning our findings indicate the opposite.

As illustrated in Table  3 , the majority of works (36) studied the effect of gamification on general class activities (16) or a particular learning activity, such as exercises (6), collaboration/discussion forums (4), projects/labs (6) or tests (4). Another part of the papers addresses activities with indirect effect on learning, such as engaging students in more regular interactions with the learning environment (11). The category “Others” includes perception studies (Davis & Klein, 2015 ), augmented game mechanics studies (Pedro et al., 2015a ), a specific activity (Mekler et al., 2015 ) or platform dependent studies (Su & Cheng, 2015 ).

Although 6 studies are addressing “Exercises”, still limited attention is given to gamifying activities where students can learn through experimenting and retrying without fear of negative consequences. One observation that can be drawn from this distribution is that learning activities which involve tasks that are decomposable into simpler subtasks or tasks where performance is measurable (according to an obvious rewarding scheme or skills) are better candidates for gamification.

What combinations of game elements are studied?

According to (Deterding et al., 2011 ) gamification is the use of game design elements in non-game contexts. In turn, game design elements which are used in the creation of gamification scenarios can be divided into three categories: dynamics, mechanics and components (Werbach & Hunter, 2012 ). Footnote 1 Dynamics represents the highest conceptual level in a gamified system. It includes constraints, emotions, narrative, progression and relationships. Mechanics are a set of rules that dictate the outcome of interactions within the system, while dynamics are users’ responses to collections of those mechanics. The game mechanics refer to the elements that move the action forward. They include challenges, chance, competition, cooperation, feedback, resource acquisition, rewards. Components are at the basic level of the gamification process and encompass the specific instances of mechanics and dynamics. They include: achievements, avatars, badges, collections, content unlocking, gifting, leaderboards, levels, points, virtual goods, etc. For instance, points (components) provide rewards (mechanics) and create a sense of progression (dynamics). However, we note that the gamification terminology is still unsettled and various variations of the introduced above terms exist. When there is no danger of confusion, we will use the terms mechanics and dynamics to refer also to their specific instances, that is, components. Also, for consistency with our previous studies (Dicheva et al. 2015 ), we will use the term game elements to refer to game components.

Most of the educational gamification studies and applications are driven by the presumption that gamification in education consists chiefly of incorporating a suitable combination of game elements within learning activities. However, our review shows that the empirical studies on understanding what kind of game elements under what circumstances can drive desired behavior are not quite systematic. In the reviewed collection, 11 papers report studies of the effect of a single game element, 8 papers study gamified systems using 2 game elements, 16 papers study gamified systems with 3 game elements, while the remaining 16 papers report results of gamifying systems by incorporating more than three elements (see Table  4 ).

In all reviewed works with the exception of (Tu et al., 2015 ), which investigates the relation between gamers’ personality and their game dynamics preferences, the gamification studies focus on the use of game elements (i.e. game components in terms of (Werbach & Hunter, 2012 )). Typically, no justification is given for the selection of particular game elements. There is a need of more studies that can improve our understanding of how individual game elements are linked to behavioral and motivational outcomes and how they function in a given educational context. Without understanding the effect of individual game elements, it is difficult to identify their contribution in studies that mix several game elements together.

The majority of gamification studies feature a subset of the following game elements: points, badges, levels, leaderboards and progress bars. This is in line with the finding of other authors, e.g. (Nicholson, 2015 ) that the combination of points, badges and leaderboards (sometimes referred to as PBL) is the most used one (see Table  5 ).

In the absence of other justification for the overuse of points, badges and leaderboards, one possible explanation is that they somewhat parallel the traditional classroom assessment model and are also easiest to implement. This combination in its trivial form can be applied to almost any context, even if there isn’t a good reason to do so. Gamification with “deeper game elements” (Enders & Kapp, 2013 ) incorporating game design principles involving game mechanics and dynamics such as challenges, choice, low risk failure, role-play or narrative are still scarce. Only one work (Tu et al., 2015 ) among the reviewed studies addresses game dynamics explicitly. Studies utilizing to some extent “deeper game elements” are demonstrated in (Bonde et al., 2014 ; Boskic & Hu, 2015 ; Holman et al., 2015 ; Krause et al., 2015 ; Pettit et al., 2015 ). We believe that in addition to reward and feedback mechanisms, gamified systems should provide safe places where learners can gain experience without being judged or punished for failure, drawing upon approaches similar to the online learning environments proposed by (Hakulinen et al., 2015 ) and (Lehtonen et al., 2015 ), where students can improve their algorithmic skills by practicing with interactive exercises (Dichev et al. 2014 ).

Three questions related to the use of combinations of game elements remain open: “Do more game elements produce better results than less?”, “Is the task of identifying the right combination of game elements with respect to a given context and user group practically feasible?” and “How to balance points and rewards with play and intrinsic engagement?”. For answering these questions and for advancing the understanding of how to build successful gamified educational systems, there is a need for testing systems that support examining the effect of game elements and experimentally validating it. In particular, it implies the need of gamification platforms that support easy configuration of gamified learning prototypes with specific characteristics leveraging different game features and principles.

The available evidences indicate that in a learning context gamification is more than mapping game elements on to existing learning content. It should offer stronger ways to motivate students, rather than be simply a stream of extrinsic motivators.

What types of studies?

The reviewed papers expand the scope of the empirical research on educational gamification, as compared to (Dicheva et al. 2015 ). Although the majority of empirical works still examine the impact of the gamification on students’ engagement, performance, participation or retention, they are widening and deepening the focus of their studies. A growing body of papers is exploring a range of learning and behavioral outcomes including:

knowledge acquisition outcomes (Jang et al., 2015 ); Laskowski & Badurowicz, 2014 ; Paiva et al., 2015 ; Su & Cheng, 2015 )

perceptual outcomes (Christy & Fox, 2014 ; Codish & Ravid, 2014 ; Davis & Klein, 2015 ; Pedro et al., 2015b ; Sillaots, 2014 ; Sillaots, 2015 ; Christy & Fox, 2014 )

behavioral outcomes (Barata et al., 2014 ; Codish & Ravid, 2015 ; Hakulinen et al., 2015 ; Hew et al., 2016 ; Pedro et al., 2015b )

engagement outcomes (Boskic & Hu, 2015 ; Chang & Wei, 2015 ; Ibanez et al., 2014 ; Latulipe et al., 2015 ; Morschheuser et al., 2014 ; Poole et al., 2014 )

motivational outcomes (Hasegawa et al., 2015 ; Herbert et al., 2014 ; Mekler et al., 2015 ; Pedro et al., 2015a ; Utomo & Santoso, 2015 )

social outcomes (Hanus & Fox, 2015 ; Christy & Fox, 2014 ; Shi et al., 2014 ).

Under the perceptual outcome category, we have included also some works that initiate a new line of studies - the impact of gamification on different demographic groups. For example, (Pedro et al., 2015b ) reported that the game mechanics implemented in a virtual learning environment did not have any effect on motivation and performance of the female students. This findings are in line with the conclusions reported by (Koivisto & Hamari, 2014 ), who have shown in a more general context that women experience a greater effect when the gamification contains social aspects and men - when there is a sort of competition. (Christy & Fox, 2014 ), on the other hand, concluded that the use of leaderboards within educational settings may act to create stereotype threat (a belief that one may be evaluated based on a negative stereotype). The results of the study found that women in the female-dominated leaderboard condition demonstrated stronger academic identification than those in the control and male-dominated leaderboard conditions. These results suggest that the use of leaderboards in academic environments can, in some circumstances, affect academic performance of different demographics differently.

The motivational outcome category concerns concepts derived from motivational principles of games such as explicit goals, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation (McGonigal, 2011 ). Motivation is demonstrated by an individual’s choice to engage in an activity and the intensity of effort or persistence in that activity. Since video games are explicitly designed for entertainment, they can produce states of desirable experience and motivate users to remain engaged in an activity with unparalleled intensity and duration. Therefore, game design was adopted as an approach for making non-game activities more enjoyable and motivating. While gamification strives at its core to increase motivation, yet motivation is not a unitary phenomenon - different people may have different types and amounts of motivation, which can be shaped by the activity they are undertaking (Gooch et al., 2016 ). Additionally, success in one educational context does not guarantee that the same mechanism will be motivationally successful in another educational context.

An important distinction in the motivation research is that between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ). While extrinsic motivation relies on incentives or expected consequences of an action, intrinsic motivation stems from fulfilling the action itself. According to the Self Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ), humans seek out activities to satisfy intrinsic motivational needs, such as competence, autonomy, or relatedness. More specifically, (Ryan et al., 2006 ) argue that the intrinsic appeal of games is due to their ability to satisfy the basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. While self-determination theory provides a good theoretical starting point for studying the motivational dynamics of ‘gamified’ educational activities, further research is needed to bridge motivation to a more granular level of game elements and learners’ personalities. Although the connection between motivation and gamification design is demonstrated by a number of the reviewed studies, they do not add persuasive evidence confirming the effect of gamification as a motivational tool. The papers claiming to examine the motivational effects of gamification often report effects on learning outcomes instead on motivation.

The reviewed collection of empirical studies on gamifying education is very diverse with respect to the focus of the studies and the reported outcomes. This makes it difficult to find categorization that organizes the reviewed works in logical categories, captures the diversity and puts at the same time every work in a separate category. We selected a categorization with a focus on the effects of gamification on learners. It includes four categories: affective (A), behavioral (B), cognitive (C), and others. The intention with this grouping was to use it as an organizational structure for connecting outcomes with game elements and gamified activities. As under this categorization many outcomes fall into two categories, we extended it with behavioral and cognitive (B + C), affective and cognitive (A + C), and affective and behavioral (A + B) groupings. Table  6 presents the studies falling into a single category, organized in three sections: behavioral, affective, and cognitive, and connecting their outcomes with the corresponding game elements and gamified activities. Table  7 presents the studies falling into two categories, organized in the same way.

The two tables provide a more compact view, capturing the links between three key categorizing variables: game elements, gamified activities and reported outcomes. The more focused information extracted in the tables explicates data relevant to the questions guiding the study. Although the empirical work on applying gamification in educational contexts continues to grow, there is not sufficient evidence indicating noticeable progress based on collating and synthesizing the previous experiences. While the range of gamifying strategies is expanding, they are scattered across many different educational contexts and the aggregated information cannot confirm any emerging systematic approach yet. As it can be seen from the tables, the empirical research on gamified learning is quite fragmented. It covers studies on different configurations of game elements, used to gamify different activities and resulting in different outcomes, without any identifiable pattern of distribution. For example, the points-badges-leaderboard configuration is dominating, with 6 works studying its effect. However, the activities gamified with this configuration vary widely: project activities, course participation, online Java exercises, homework in high school LMS assessment and overall course activities. Within the category “Gamified activity” dominating is “Overall class activities” but again the configurations of game elements used to gamify it are very different: badges, leveling, autonomy, leaderboard, grade predictor; stamps, tokens, leaderboard; points, scoreboard, goals, avatar, feedback, levels, luck, competition; points, badges, leaderboard; points, leaderboard; badges, leaderboard, virtual coins, pseudonyms. The dearth of studies that build on the previous ones or parallel their efforts on exploring particular aspects of the effect of gamification on engagement and learning suggests a piecemeal approach. In the current studies that mix together points, badges, leaderboard, progress, status, etc. without a discernible systematic experimental approach, it is difficult to identify which game elements or configurations are most effective in promoting engagement and supporting learning for given activity and group of learners.

What types of goals?

We noticed that in addition to the heterogeneous nature of the empirical research, the stated goals of the studies were not always in line with the reported outcomes. To provide an additional dimension for organizing and examining the links between the corresponding categorizing variables we further grouped the studies according to their stated goal (see Appendix 2 , which lists the reviewed studies along with their goals). The two top categories for grouping the studies based on the study goals are: learner-centric and platform-centric (see Table  8 ). The bulk of works which expands and differentiates the earlier research on the effect of gamification on learners (e.g. (Dicheva et al., 2015 )) falls in the first category (44 papers). This category includes 4 subcategories grouping further the studies as follows:

Behavioral and cognitive results: focusing on behavioral and cognitive effects caused by gamification.

Categories of learners: focusing on the effects of gamification on different groups of learners.

Learners’ perception: focusing on the learner’s perception of different game mechanics and principles.

Measures: focusing on the measures used for assessing the outcomes.

These four groups cover a wide variety of goals. Group A includes studies of the effectiveness of gamification in the classroom longitudinally (Hanus & Fox, 2015 ); the impact of gamification on retention and learning success (Jang et al., 2015 ; Krause et al., 2015 ), on participation and quality of online discussions (Smith et al., 2014 ), on reducing undesirable behaviors and increasing performance in virtual learning environments (Pedro et al., 2015b ) and in personal learning environments (Lehtonen et al., 2015 ; Morschheuser et al., 2014 ); the effect of badges on student behavior (Hakulinen et al., 2015 ) and how they predict the student exam success (Boticki et al., 2015 ); the causal effect of gamifying a course project with leaderboards (Landers & Landers, 2015 ); the learning effectiveness of a gamified simulation (Bonde et al., 2014 ) and the effect of transforming a traditional course into a role-playing game (Boskic & Hu, 2015 ).

A progress has been made within the learner-centric category with explorations of psychological effects of gamification which can be summarized by the question: How students with different personalities, dispositions and learning styles are influenced by game elements? While in our first review the question shared between most of the papers was “Is gamification effective?”, now it appears in a more extended version, in combination with the questions “for what?” or “to whom?”.

Group B includes papers identifying learner types based on how students experience gamified courses (Barata et al., 2014 ) and how different learners perceive playfulness (Codish & Ravid, 2014 ), on the variation in motivation between learners with different gamification typologies (Herbert et al., 2014 ), on exploring whether points, leaderboards, and levels increase performance, competence, need satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation (Mekler et al., 2015 ), on involving Asian students in gamified course activities (Hew et al., 2016 ) and on the predictive effect of gaming personality on their game dynamic preferences (Tu et al., 2015 ). Even though the amount of papers addressing the question “to whom” is still limited, an emerging shared message particularly relevant to instructional designers recognizes that what one learner values, another may not, what one learner believes is achievable, another may not. Understanding differences in learners’ drivers, what they value and what they dislike is important to the design of reward, progress, and feedback systems with potential to achieve desired outcomes for the intended groups of learners.

Group C includes papers on students’ perceptions of simple game elements such as badges (Davis & Klein, 2015 ) or combination of points and badges (Paiva et al., 2015 ). It also includes studies on how students perceive a game-like course (Sillaots, 2015 ) and on profiling learners based on their gamification preferences (Knutas et al., 2014 ).

Another emerging topic in this category groups the works on measuring the impact of gamification (Group D). This group includes papers on the impact of gamification on students’ engagement and how to measure that impact (Simoes et al., 2015 ), papers on the effectiveness of gamification behavior patterns as a measure of playfulness (Codish & Ravid, 2015 ), and how predictive measurements can help students plan their pathways in gamified courses (Holman et al., 2015 ). While gamification is promoted as a motivational instrument, studies measuring its motivational effects are still limited.

In the second category we have placed 7 articles, which study the effect of incorporating selected game elements or game principles into specific learning platforms or experiment with conventional game elements by assigning them new roles. This category includes studies of employing gamification in audience response systems (Barrio et al., 2015 ; Pettit et al., 2015 ), in mobile learning systems (Su & Cheng, 2015 ), in Learning Management Systems (Lambruschini & Pizarro, 2015 ) and in MOOCs (Chang & Wei, 2015 ). Two papers explore creating badges as a tool for measuring students’ interest (Tvarozek & Brza, 2014 ) and the effect of collaborative badge creation on engagement and motivation (Pedro et al., 2015a ). The papers listed in the platform-centric category do not cover all gamified platforms proposed in the reviewed papers. When according to our judgment the focus of a paper was on behavioral effects, as for example in (Krause et al., 2015 ), that paper was included in the first category. The availability of successful gamified platforms will help widen the scope of gamified educational activities and create a ground for broadening experimental studies towards developing evidence based practices.

How conclusive are the reported results?

One of the evolving goals of this review was to take a closer look at the supporting evidence for the ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ results of the empirical studies as reported by their authors. This was provoked by the fact that some of the papers studying the effect of gamification on learners reported a mix of positive and negative results, other were inconclusive, and yet other expressed a degree of caution, while the strength of the evidence backing the positive and negative results were varying significantly.

A common pattern observed in most studies is to design and develop a particular gamified course/activity/environment, test it in a pilot and assess users’ approvals and gains in performance. The reported outcome often concludes that the gamification produced the pursued learning gains and that the users appreciated the added gamification features. Irrespective of the goals of the studies, the works on gamifying education should be subject to the same level of skepticism and scrutiny that is applied to any other areas of empirical research. In order to improve our understanding and to offer a more realistic picture of the nature of the effects of using gamification in education, consistent with the presented evidence, we undertook a more in-depth examination of the reviewed papers with a focus on both the reported outcomes and how they have been obtained. The primary aim of this effort was twofold: (i) to provide a critical review, questioning the validity of some reported outcomes, and (ii) to offer a picture that avoids the harmful effects of an one-sided viewpoint.

Our decision on the validity of the gamification studies was guided by the following factors: the sample size, the number of study groups, the length of the study, how the data was collected, how the variables were controlled, how and by what statistical procedures the data was analyzed, how well the conclusions are supported by the data, and does the study give enough information to convince the reader in the correctness of the evaluation conclusions. The examination of the selected papers indicated that the empirical studies tended to use surveys and quasi-experimental designs, while the randomized controlled trials were less common. According to the nature of the empirical study, the papers were partitioned into two major categories: ABC studies, which target Affective/Behavioral/Cognitive outcomes, and non-ABC studies. The ABC studies were further partitioned into three subcategories: positive, negative and inconclusive, based on the reliability of the evidence for the reported ABC outcome. The outcomes were marked as “positive” if valid evidence confirms the claim and marked as “negative” if the evidence confirms its negation. The studies were marked as “inconclusive” if the presented evidence was judged as insufficient based on inadequacies, such as small sample sizes, lack of comparison groups, use of purely descriptive statistics, short experiment timeframes, and unreliable statistical evidence. For example, reported positive effects of gamification based on a two-week study could be attributed to the ‘novelty effect’ of the used tool or approach rather than to the added gamification features. In the inconclusive category we also included papers studying gamification in combination with some other factors, which make uncertain whether the observed effects can be attributed to the gamification or to the other variables, as well as papers where no positive effect was found but negative effect was not discernible either.

The classification of papers in accordance with our judgment of the degree of validity of the reported results is presented in Table  9 and the proportions of the resulting grouping of the ABC papers in Fig.  1 .

Distribution of the behavioral studies by degree of evidence

The paper grouping, based on the strengths of the presented evidence, reveals that the high expectations for positive outcomes from gamified learning are not confirmed by the results of the reviewed empirical studies (see Fig.  1 ).

The examination of the papers shows that from the 41 ABC empirical studies only 15 present conclusive evidences for the reported outcomes. In those 15 papers, the findings related to the benefits of gamification are mixed: 12 studies present evidence for positive effects of gamification in educational settings, while 3 present evidence for negative effects. A surprising fact is that the vast majority of the empirical works (25 studies) report inconclusive outcomes, which means that there is no basis for confidence in the reported results. Such outcomes obscure the level of progress in the area of educational gamification. Table  10 and Table  11 below are obtained from Table  6 and Table  7 , correspondingly, by eliminating the studies marked as inconclusive. With this relatively small number of (15) papers and a diverse specter of game elements and activities, the presented outcomes are insufficient to draw definitive conclusions on the effectiveness of gamification on students’ engagement, learning or participation. This judgement can be interpreted as an answer to the first guiding question about the existing empirical evidence for the impact of gamification on motivational processes and effectiveness of learning. Currently, there is a dearth of quality empirical evidence to support general claims of the impact of gamification on student’ learning and motivation. Whilst 12 studies report encouraging outcomes, they cover a range of specific combinations of game elements, specific activities and outcomes and thus do not support practical generalization. It would be short-sighted to assume that gamified implementations with the same configurations of game elements would function similarly across different educational contexts. For example, (Hakulinen et al., 2015 ) present convincing evidence that points, badges and leaderboard incorporated in online Java exercises increases the use of an open learning environment. However, with the current understanding of the motivational mechanisms afforded by gamification, we cannot generalize this claim to other activities, game element combinations or academic subjects. In general, studies reporting positive results from using a specific combination of game elements do not promote the understanding of the causal effect of the combination, as it is unclear whether the combination or a particular element led to the positive outcome (e.g. Bonde et al., 2014 ; Jang et al., 2015 ). Negative results such as those of Hanus and Fox ( 2015 ), who reported that badges, leaderboard, virtual coins, and pseudonyms incorporated in a communication course can have a detrimental effect on students’ motivation, satisfaction, and empowerment, help understand the limits of gamification. Again, the results obtained from such studies should be interpreted in a restricted manner, for the specific combinations of game elements, gamified activity, academic subject, and age group. The piecemeal approach observed in the reviewed studies slows down the advancement in the understanding of the effect of incorporating game elements in learning activities. From the 14 studies listed in the two tables, with 14 different combinations of game elements and 15 different gamified activities, it is difficult to derive useful information on how to gamify a new (different) activity with predictable outcomes. For example, two papers (Hakulinen et al., 2015 ) and (Landers & Landers, 2015 ) report positive outcomes for using single game elements, but one is for badges and the other one for leaderboards. On the other hand, two of the studies reporting negative results deal with Mathematics (Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015 ; Long & Aleven, 2014 ). But, in these two cases, the game elements, the learning activities, the student level and the gender vary. In addition, the mix of badges, levels, leaderboards, progress, feedback, status and avatars used in the conclusive studies makes it hard to know which of these elements actually worked. Furthermore, the fundamental differences in the studied educational contexts hamper the transfer of experimented practices from one learning situation to another. All this suggests a need for a more systematic program of experimental studies.

We note that our judgment in studying inconclusiveness can be viewed as rather subjective. Therefore, Table  12 presents the papers judged as “inconclusive” along with a short explanation for placing them in this group. In several cases our judgment simply conveys the paper’s conclusion where the authors themselves acknowledge that the results of the study should be interpreted with caution.

While it seems apparent that gamification has the potential to create enhanced learning environments, there is still insufficient evidence that it (1) produces reliable, valid and long-lasting educational outcomes, or (2) does so better than traditional educational models. There is still insufficient empirical work that investigates the educational potential of gamification in a rigorous manner. Increasing the number of studies that use randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs will increase the scientific robustness. The continued (and coordinated) collection of evidence, that is, data that substantiate the successes and failures of gamification, remains crucial for building an empirical knowledge base and consolidating best practices, extracting guidelines and eventually developing predictive theories. It is necessary to strengthen the methodical base of gamified learning and systematically enlarge the body of evidence that explains what factors and conditions produce desirable outcomes. The empirical research should thereby not just be fixated on the pros of gamified learning, but also be open to the cons and the conditions when gamification for learning should be avoided (Linehan et al., 2011 ; Westera, 2015 ).

Indirectly related to the conclusiveness of the reported results are the measurements used. A significant number of the studies (15) are using performance as a measure of the effect that gamification has on the studied activities. This is understandable for several reasons. First, the driving criterion for adopting any technology in education is whether and how much it can improve learning. Second, one can argue that high learner performance provides evidence of learners motivation since performance has been shown to correlate with learner’s motivation. However, such an approach is imperfect. Performance is an indirect measure of motivation that is influenced by many non-motivational factors such as ability, prior knowledge, and quality of instruction, while motivation is the actual driving force which makes individuals want to do something and help them continue doing it. Therefore, it is beneficial to understand the motivational triggers that engage learners. This suggests a need of studies that utilize more reliable measures of motivation and characterize better how gamification influences learner motivation and consequently how it improves learner engagement and outcomes. Motivation is associated with a number of learning related concepts such as engagement, effort, goals, focus of attention, self-efficacy, confidence, achievement, interest, etc. Improving our understanding of motivational aspects of gamification will enable us to predict its effect on the related concepts. In addition, it will help improve the gamification design, in particular, how to design an appropriate gamified experience that strengthens the motivation of a given population of learners and leads to desirable learning outcomes.

Theoretical perspective

Gamification is growing as an area of both practice and research. The majority of the studies reviewed in the previous sections lack a theoretical underpinning that can help understand the researchers’ motivation and the justification for how their gamification approach is supported by a theoretical framework. For completeness of the review, in this section we outline theoretical works underpinning the use of gamification in education, published within the review period. Overall, the bulk of theoretical research addressing gamification maintains that focusing on points and rewards rather than on play and intrinsic engagement cannot always meet the goal of desired behavior change by catering to the intrinsic values of learners (Hansch et al., 2015 ; Songer & Miyata, 2014 ; Tomaselli et al., 2015 ). This suggests a user-centered approach in the design of gamified systems, characterized by a focus on the needs and desires of learners. A new line of research is taking steps towards developing a theory of educational gamification by combining motivational and learning theories aimed at linking gamification to practical education (Landers, 2015 ; Landers, Bauer, Callan, & Armstrong, 2015 ) or by developing a framework for integrating gamification with pedagogy (Tulloch, 2014 ) or psychology of games (Lieberoth, 2015 ).

Tulloch ( 2014 ) maintains that gamification is a product of an overlooked history of pedagogic refinement, a history of training that is effective, but largely ignored, namely the process of games teaching players how to play. He challenges the evolving concept of gamification, conceptualizing it not as a simple set of techniques and mechanics, but as a pedagogic heritage and an alternative framework for training and shaping participant behavior that has at its core the concepts of entertainment and engagement. Yet, Biro ( 2014 ) considers gamification as a new educational theory, alongside of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism and connectivism.

Songer and Miyata ( 2014 ) propose to deviate from using simple game elements often found in gamification approaches and move to a “gameful” experience that fosters intrinsic motivation of players. The authors address the issue of gamifying educational contexts with discussions about gamer motivations, the relationship between games and play, and designs for optimal learning within games. Based on the theoretical foundations of behavioral psychology, anthropology and game studies, the authors propose a model for the design and evaluation of playful experiences in learning environments inspired by game design.

With related concerns, (Tomaselli et al., 2015 ) attempts to analyze the most engaging factors for gamers in the context of gamification by questioning the relevance of some of the most used gamification strategies like attributing points and badges or simple reputation elements to users. The authors explore how engagement is associated with a variety of types of contemporary digital games. The results show that although there is support for the importance of competition against peers (contrary to the current prevailing understanding), the challenge of overcoming the game’s obstacles and mastering them is what matters the most to players, regardless of the type of the game. The takeaway message is that the gamified system designers should not be so concerned with rankings and online comparisons to encourage users to compete against each other, but with their use as a personal reference, creating challenging environments and guidance for users to achieve their mastery interests.

Landers ( 2015 ) advocates that no single theory is able to explain gamification. Accordingly, he presents a set of theories organized in two categories, motivational and learning theories that are most likely to explain the effects of gamification when it is implemented as an instructional intervention. Among learning theories, Landers identifies two major frameworks to describe the learning outcomes of gamification: the theory of gamified instructional design and classic conditioning theories of learning. He also identifies three major types of motivational theories: expectancy-based theories, goal-setting theory, and the self-determination theory.

The theory of gamified learning proposed by (Landers et al., 2015 ) provides two specific causal pathways by which gamification can affect learning and a framework for testing these pathways. Their theory identifies two specific processes by which gamification can affect learning. In both processes the gamification is aimed at affecting learning-related behavior. In the first one, this behavior moderates the relationship between instructional quality and learning. In the second, this behavior mediates the relationship between game elements and learning. Critically, one or both of these processes may be involved in any particular gamification effort. For gamification to be effective, it must successfully alter an intermediary learner behavior or learner attitude. That behavior or attitude must then itself cause changes in learning directly or must strengthen the effectiveness of existing instruction.

In their explorative study, Hansch et al. ( 2015 ) examine the motivational potential of gamification in online learning. Through reviewing ten platforms and an in-depth analysis, they explore how the motivational potential of gamification mechanics and the social and interactive elements in online learning can be effectively combined to build a community of engaged learners. The authors conclude that the starting point in gamifying online education should be learners’ needs, motivations and goals, rather than a platform-centric approach that strives to use technical features to hit some pre-defined performance metrics.

According to Lieberoth ( 2015 ), it might not be the game itself that stimulates individuals, but rather the packaging: the fact that an activity resembles a game. The simple framing of an activity as a “game” can potentially alter an individual’s behavior. To demonstrate this insight Lieberoth designed an experiment focusing on the psychological effects of framing tasks as games versus including game mechanics. The outcomes indicate that engagement and enjoyment increased significantly due to the psychological effects of framing the task as a game. Furthermore, no actual increased interest or enjoyment was measured by adding actual game mechanics to the task, when it was already framed as a game. This study reveals an interesting psychological perspective of gamification in educational environments: merely making an activity seem like a game impacts learners’ engagement.

In addition to the gamification works with theoretical, conceptual or methodological orientation, five literature reviews (Borges, Durelli, Reis, & Isotani, 2014 ; Caponetto et al., 2014 ; Dicheva & Dichev, 2015 ; Faiella & Ricciardi, 2015 ; Gerber, 2014 ) have been published over the last two years. While these reviews synthesize the empirical research on gamification in education, neither of them provides a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the research findings of the reviewed studies. The present review addresses this gap by evaluating analytically the validity of the reported results.

The research on gamification frameworks, platforms, and toolsets that help making the design and development of gamification applications easier, faster, and cheaper has also been showing progress in the last few years. Since the current research on gamification specific frameworks is not explicitly driven by educational objectives, we refer the interested readers to a corresponding literature review on this topic (Mora et al., 2015 ).

While the reviewed theoretical studies are touching interesting points, the covered topics are insufficient for complete understanding of the motivational mechanisms of gamification in educational context. Without a theoretical framework backing the design of the studies and the interpretation of their results, it is problematic to select an appropriate gamification structure or to differentiate which of the employed game mechanisms and principles were essential for arriving at successful outcomes. Hence, there is a need of theoretical and empirical studies capable of mutually advancing each other. This will allow bridging the identified gaps in order to understand how gamification in education works, when it works best, and its limits and key strategies.

Gamification in education is an approach for encouraging learners’ motivation and engagement by incorporating game design principles in the learning environment. The importance of sustaining students’ motivation has been a long-standing challenge to education. This explains the significant attention that gamification has gained in educational context - its potential to motivate students. However, the process of integrating game design principles within varying educational experiences appears challenging and there are currently no practical guidelines for how to do so in a coherent and efficient manner. The discussion in the present review has been structured based on the combinations of the game elements used, the gamified subjects, the type of learning activities, and the identified goals, ending with a thorough discussion on the reliability and validity of the reported outcomes. The review confirmed that the research on gamification is very diverse with respect to the focus of the studies, the reported outcomes and methodological approaches. It also indicates that the research focus at present is mainly on empirical studies with less attention to the theoretical considerations. Moreover, the majority of the studies target college students. A number of gamification approaches, driven by specific objectives, have been applied to support learning and related activities in a variety of educational contexts. Studies on how distinct categories of learners are affected by gamification, what to measure as an outcome, and how to add a gamified layer to a core activity are also emerging. Despite the fact that gamification in education is still growing phenomenon, the reviewed studies indicate that (i) The practice of gamifying learning has outpaced researchers’ understanding of its mechanisms and methods, (ii) Insufficient high-quality evidence exists to support the long-term benefits of gamification in educational context, and (iii) The understanding of how to gamify an activity depending on the specifics of the educational context is still limited.

We have identified a growing number of studies reporting empirical evidences for the effectiveness of gamification in educational context. At the same time, it is noticeable that a growing body of reported results is backed by inconclusive and insufficient evidence for making valid claims about the efficacy of gamification in education. Possible reasons for this are from one side the hype to publish on gamification and from another, the addressing of an overly broad research question based on limited supportive evidence. Whether gamification motivates students, improves learning or increases participation, are too broad questions. Instead, the focus should be narrowed to questions of the type: whether game design elements G are effective for learners of type L participating in activity of type A. All these indicate a need of a systematic program of experimental studies mapping game elements to the learning and motivational specifics of individual (groups of) learners. Another grey area that deserves attention is how to avoid gamification scenarios that can harm learning.

Gamification is a psychologically driven approach targeting motivation–the desire and willingness to do something. From technical perspective, it is a motivational design problem. While the majority of the reviewed studies do analyze specific educational effects of gamification (on learning, attainment, participation), their focus is often aside from motivation. When motivation is targeted, it is typically examined through observable indicators, such as grades, attendance, etc. that are not always directly linked to it. As a result, the educational benefits of gamification in terms of increasing student motivation or linking this motivation to learning outcomes are still not well understood.

While the effort to understand the effects of gamification on learning is expanding, there is a need for exploring the effect of game design elements in its broad sense including game mechanics and game dynamics and across learning contexts. The observed emphasis on points, badges, and leaderboards is too narrow to address the relevant motivational factors. It is also crucial to understand the target population of a gamified system in order to gamify a learning activity successfully. Specifically, the unique needs and preferences of each group of learners, along with the particular learning objectives relevant to that group must inform the choice of game elements.

A comparison of the results of this survey with the previous ones, which marked the climb to the inflated expectation, indicates a trend of decline of the expectations. The rise and fall of expectations for applying gamification in educational contexts is nothing out of the ordinary. Most emerging technologies and the accompanying research go through an initial period of hype as described by the Gartner’s Hype Cycle, before evolving for a second period of measured popularity, in which it attains maturity and meets the expectations (Naik, 2015 ). There are several assumptions underlying the usefulness of gamification in educational context, such as gamification is motivating, gamification is engaging, gamification can improve attendance and participation. However, research remains inconclusive on these assumptions. Educational contexts in which gamification may be particularly useful have not been confirmed yet. This does not mean though that gamification cannot be used with success in a learning context. It simply means that the educational benefits of gamification have not been scientifically confirmed yet. Only continued theoretical and rigorous systematic empirical work in varying gamification settings and across contexts will enable us to establish a practical, comprehensive, and methodical understanding of the benefits of applying gamification in educational contexts.

This terminology has been popularized through the book “For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business” by Werbach and Hunter and a series of Coursera’s MOOCs.

Amriani, A., Aji, A., Utomo, A. Y., Wahidah, F., & Junus, K. (2014). Gamified E-learning model based on community of inquiry. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems, Jakarta , 474–480, doi: 10.1109/ICACSIS.2014.7065830 .

Anderson, P. E., Nash, T., & McCauley, R. (2015). Facilitating programming success in data science courses through gamified scaffolding and Learn2Mine, ITICSE ‘15, July 04–08, 2015, Vilnius, Lithuania .

Google Scholar  

Attali, Y., & Arieli-Attali, M. (2015). Gamification in assessment: do points affect test performance? Computers & Education, 83 , 57–63.

Article   Google Scholar  

Auvinen, T., Hakulinen, L., & Malmi, L. (2015). Increasing Students’ Awareness of their Behavior in Online Learning Environments with Visualizations and Achievement Badges, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies , 8 (3), 261–273, doi: 10.1109/TLT.2015.2441718 .

Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2014). Identifying student types in a gamified learning experience. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 4 (4), 19–36.

Barrio, C.M., Organero M.M., & Soriano, J. S. (2015). Can Gamification Improve the Benefits of Student Response Systems in Learning? An Experimental Study. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, PP (99). doi: 10.1109/TETC.2015.2497459 .

Bernik, A., Bubaš, G., & Radošević, D. (2015). A pilot study of the influence of gamification on the effectiveness of an e-Learning Course. In 26th Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems (CECIIS 2015) . (pp. 73–79). Varazdin: Faculty of Organization and Informatics.

Biro, G. I. (2014). Didactics 2.0: a pedagogical analysis of gamification theory from a comparative perspective with special view to the components of learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141 , 148–151.

Bonde, M. T., Makransky, G., Wandall, J., Larsen, M. V., Morsing, M., Jarmer, H., & Sommer, M. O. (2014). Improving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations. Nature Biotechnology, 32 (7), 694–697.

Borges, S. S., Durelli, V. H. S., Reis, H. M., & Isotani, S. (2014). A systematic mapping on gamification applied to education. In ACM SAC’14 Conference, Gyeongju, South Korea (pp. 216–222).

Boskic, N., & Hu, S. (2015). Gamification in higher education: how we changed roles. European Conference on Games Based Learning , (pp. 741–748). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.

Boticki, I., Baksa, J., Seow, P., & Looi, C. K. (2015). Usage of a mobile social learning platform with virtual badges in a primary school. Computers & Education, 86 , 120–136.

Broer, J. (2014). Gamification and the trough of disillusionment. In A. Butz, M. Koch, & J. Schlichter (Eds.), Mensch & Computer 2014 - Workshopband (pp. 389–395). Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.

Caponetto, I., Earp, J., & Ott, M. (2014). Gamification and education: a literature review. In 8th European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 50–57). Germany: ECGBL. ISBN 978-1-910309-55-1.

Chang, J.W., & Wei, H.Y. (2015). Exploring Engaging Gamification Mechanics in Massive Online Open Courses, Educational Technology & Society , 12/2015 (in print).

Christy, K. R., & Fox, J. (2014). Leaderboards in a virtual classroom: a test of stereotype threat and social comparison explanations for women’s math performance. Computers & Education, 78 , 66–77.

Codish, D., & Ravid, G. (2014). Academic course gamification: the art of perceived playfulness. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 10 , 131–151.

Codish, D., & Ravid, G. (2015). Detecting playfulness in educational gamification through behavior patterns. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 59 (6), 1–14. doi: 10.1147/JRD.2015.2459651

Davis, K., & Klein, E. (2015). Investigating high school students’ perceptions of digital badges in afterschool learning. In ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘15) , (pp. 4043–4046). New York, NY: ACM

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. In 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9–15). New York, NY: ACM.

Dichev, C., Dicheva, D., Angelova, G., & Agre, G. (2014). From gamification to gameful design and gameful experience in learning. Journal of Cybernetics and Information Technologies, 14 (4), 80–100. doi: 10.1515/cait-2014-0007

Dicheva, D., & Dichev, C. (2015). Gamification in education: where are we in 2015? World Conference on E-Learning (ELEARN 2015), Kona, Hawaii, October 19–22 (pp. 1276–1284). Chesapeake: AACE.

Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: a systematic mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18 (3), 75–88.

Enders, B., & Kapp, K. (2013). Gamification, Games, and Learning: What Managers and Practitioners Need to Know, Hot Topics, The eLearning Guild Research , 1–7.

Faiella, F., & Ricciardi, M. (2015). Gamification and learning: a review of issues and research. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11 (3), 13–21.

Gartner. (2013). Hype cycle for emerging technologies, 2013 . Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/document/2571624 . Accessed 15 Apr 2016.

Gerber, H. (2014). Problems and Possibilities of Gamifying Learning: A Conceptual Review. Internet Learning Journal, 3 (2), Article 5. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.apus.edu/internetlearning/vol3/iss2/5 . Accessed 16 Jan 2017.

Gooch, D., Vasalou, A., Benton, L., & Khaled, R. (2016). Using gamification to motivate students with dyslexia . CHI 2016, May 7–12 2016, San Jose.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A. (2015). The effect of achievement badges on students’ behavior: an empirical study in a university-level computer science course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 10 (1), 18–29.

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? – A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA (pp. 3025–3034). doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2014.377 .

Hansch, A., Newman, C., & Schildhauer, T. (2015). Fostering Engagement with Gamification: Review of Current Practices on Online Learning Platforms. (November 23, 2015). HIIG Discussion Paper Series No. 2015–04. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2694736 .

Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80 , 152–161.

Hasegawa, T., Koshino, M., & Ban, H. (2015). An English Vocabulary Learning Support System for the Learner’s Sustainable Motivation. Springer Plus: Innovative Cloud Application in Computer Intelligence, 4 (99). doi: 10.1186/s40064-015-0792-2 .

Herbert, B., Charles, D., Moore, A., & Charles, T. (2014). An investigation of gamification typologies for enhancing learner motivation. In International Conference on Interactive Technologies and Games, UK (pp. 71–78).

Hew, K. F., Huang, B., Chu, K. W. S., & Chiu, D. K. W. (2016). Engaging Asian students through game mechanics: findings from two experiment studies. Computers & Education, 92–93 , 221–236.

Holman, C., Aguilar, S., & Fishman, B. (2013). GradeCraft: what can we learn from a game-inspired learning management system? Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 2013 , (pp. 260–264). New York, NY: ACM.

Holman, C., Aguilar, S. J., Levick, A., Stern, J., Plummer, B., & Fishman, B. (2015). Planning for success: how students use a grade prediction tool to win their classes. In 2015 Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, (pp. 260–264). New York, NY: ACM.

Ibanez, M., Di Serio, A., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Gamification for engaging computer science students in learning activities: a case study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7 (3), 291–301.

Jang, J., Park, J., & Yi, M. Y. (2015). Gamification of online learning. In 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) (pp. 646–649). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Knutas, A., Ikonen, J., Maggiorini, D., Ripomonti, L., & Porras, J. (2014a). Creating software engineering student interaction profiles for discovering gamification approaches to improve collaboration. In 15th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech’14) , (pp. 378–385). New York, NY: ACM.

Knutas, A., Ikonen J., Nikula, U., & Porras, J. (2014). Increasing Collaborative Communications in a Programming Course with Gamification: A Case Study . 15th Int. Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech’14) , (pp. 370–377). New York, NY: ACM

Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35 , 179–188.

Krause, M., Mogalle, M., Pohl, H., & Williams, J. J. (2015). A playful game changer: fostering student retention in online education with social gamification. In L@S’15 Proc. of Learning@ Scale Conference (pp. 95–102). Vancouver: ACM Press.

Lambruschini, B. B., & Pizarro, W. G. (2015). Tech - Gamification in University Engineering Education. In 10th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE 2015) (pp. 295–299) IEEE Conference Publications, doi: 10.1109/ICCSE.2015.7250259 .

Landers, R. N. (2015). Developing a theory of gamified learning: linking serious games and gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45 , 752–768.

Landers, R. N., Bauer, K. N., Callan, R. C., & Armstrong, M. B. (2015). Psychological theory and the gamification of learning. In T. Reiners & L. Wood (Eds.), Gamification in education and business (pp. 165–186). Cham: Springer.

Landers, R. N., & Landers, A. K. (2015). An empirical test of the theory of gamified learning: the effect of leaderboards on time-on-task and academic performance. Simulation & Gaming, 45 , 769–785.

Laskowski, M., & Badurowicz, M. (2014). Gamification in Higher Education: A Case Study. In MakeLearn 2014: Human Capital without Borders: Knowledge and Learning for Quality of Life. Management, Knowledge and Learning International Conference , 971–975. (pp. 971–975). Portorož: ToKnowPress.

Latulipe, C., Long, N. B., & Seminario, C. E. (2015). Structuring flipped classes with lightweight teams and gamification. SIGCSE, 2015 , Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 392–397). New York, NY: ACM

Leach, D., Laur, B., Code, J., Bebbington, T., & Broome, D. (2014). Gamification for online engagement in higher education: a randomized controlled trial (pp. 151–159). Madison: Games Learning + Society Conference.

Lehtonen, T., Aho, T., Isohanni, E., & Mikkonen, T. (2015). On the role of gamification and localization in an open online learning environment: Javala experiences. In 15th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 50–59). New York, NY: ACM.

Lieberoth, A. (2015). Shallow gamification – psychological effects of framing an activity as a game. Games and Culture, 10 (3), 249–268.

Linehan, C., Kirman, B., Lawson, S., & Chan, G. (2011). Practical, appropriate, empirically-validated guidelines for designing educational games. In ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 7–12 (pp. 1979–1988). Canada: Vancouver.

Long, Y., & Aleven, V. (2014). Gamification of joint student/system control over problem selection in a linear equation tutor. In S. Trausan-Matu, K. E. Boyer, M. Crosby, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), 12th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, ITS 2014 (pp. 378–387). Honolulu: Springer International Publishing.

Mahnič, N. (2014). Gamification of politics: start a new game! Teorija in Praksa, 51 (1), 143–161.

McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: why games make us better and how they can change the world . New York: Penguin.

Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2015). Towards Understanding the Effects of Individual Gamification Elements on Intrinsic Motivation and Performance. Computers in Human Behavior . doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048 .

Mora, A., Riera, D., & Gonzalez, C. (2015). A literature review of gamification design frameworks. In Seventh International conference on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications: VS-Games, Sweden (pp. 1–8). doi: 10.1109/VS-GAMES.2015.7295760 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Morrison, B., & DiSalvo, B. (2014). Khan Academy Gamifies Computer Science. In Proceedings of SIGCSE’2014 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM (pp. 39–44).

Morschheuser, B. S., Rivera-Pelayo, V., Mazarakis, A., & Zacharias, V. (2014). Interaction and reflection with quantified self and gamification: an experimental study. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 15 (2), 136–156.

Naik, L. (2015). Gamification Isn’t Dead, It’s Just Very Misunderstood. Pulse, July 2015. Available at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gamification-isnt-dead-its-just-very-misunderstood-lee-naik .

Nevin, C. R., Westfall, A. O., Rodriguez, J. M., Dempsey, D. M., Cherrington, A., Roy, B., Patel, M., & Willig, J. H. (2014). Gamification as a tool for enhancing graduate medical education. Postgrad Med Journal, 90 (1070), 685–693.

Nicholson, S. (2015). A RECIPE for meaningful gamification. In L. Wood & T. Reiners (Eds.), Gamification in education and business (pp. 1–20). New York: Springer.

Paiva, R., Barbosa, A., Batista, E., Pimentel, D., & Bittencourt, I. (2015). Badges and XP: an observational study about learning. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–8). doi: 10.1109/FIE.2015.7344074 .

Pedro, L.Z., Lopes, A.M.Z., Prates, B.G., Vassileva, J., & Isotani, S. (2015b). Does Gamification Work for Boys and Girls? An Exploratory Study with a Virtual Learning Environment. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’15) , 214–219, doi: 10.1145/2695664.2695752 .

Pedro, L., Santos, C., Aresta, M., & Almeida, S. (2015a). Peer-Supported Badge Attribution in a Collaborative Learning Platform: The SAPO Campus case. Computers in Human Behavior, 51 , 562–567, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.024 .

Perry, B. (2015). Gamifying French language learning: a case study examining a quest-based, augmented reality mobile learning tool. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174 , 2308–2315.

Pettit, R.K., McCoy, L., Kinney, M., & Schwartz, F.N., (2015). Student Perceptions of Gamified Audience Response System Interactions in Large Group Lectures and via Lecture Capture Technology Approaches to Teaching and Learning. BMC Medical Education, 15 (92). doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0373-7 .

Poole, S., Kemp, E., Patterson, L., & Williams, K. (2014). Get your head in the game: using gamification in business education to connect with generation Y. Journal for Excellence in Business Education, 3 (2), 1–9.

Ryan, R. M., Rigby, S. C., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: a self-determination theory approach, Motivation and Emotion, 30 , 347–363. Springer Science+Business Media. doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 , 68–78.

Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: a survey. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 74 , 14–31.

Shi, L., Cristea, A. I., Hadzidedic, S., & Dervishalidovic, N. (2014). Contextual gamification of social interaction – towards increasing motivation in social e-learning. In 13th International Conference on Web-based Learning (ICWL2014) (pp. 116–122). Tallinn: Springer. 14–17 August, LNCS 8613.

Sillaots, M. (2014). Gamification of higher education by the example of course of research methods. Advances in Web-Based Learning – ICWL, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8613 , 106–115. Tallinn: Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

Sillaots, M. (2015). Gamification of higher education by the example of computer games course. In The Seventh International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On-line Learning (eLmL) (pp. 62–58). Lisbon: IARIA. ISBN 978-1-61208-385-8. Available at http://www.thinkmind.org/index.php?view=article&articleid=elml_2015_4_20_50048 . Accessed 17 Jan 2017.

Simoes, J., Mateus, S., Redondo, R., & Vilas, A. (2015). An Experiment to Assess Students’ Engagement in a Gamified Social Learning Environment, eLearning Papers, 43 , July 2015, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2384.0488 .

Smith, E., Herbert, J., Kavanagh, L. & Reidsema, C. (2014). The Effects of Gamification on Student Learning through the Use of Reputation and Rewards within Community Moderated Discussion Boards. AAEE: 24th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education , Australia, ISBN: 9780992409906. Available at https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:326086/UQ326086.pdf . Accessed 16 Jan 2017.

Songer, R. W., & Miyata, K. (2014). A playful affordances model for gameful learning. In TEEM ‘14 2nd International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, Salamanca, Spain (pp. 205–213). doi: 10.1145/2669711.2669901 .

Su, C. H., & Cheng, C. H. (2015). A mobile gamification learning system for improving the learning motivation and achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31 (3), 268–286.

Tomaselli, F., Sanchez, O., & Brown, S. (2015). How to engage users through gamification: the prevalent effects of playing and mastering over competing. In Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth (pp. 1–16).

Tu, C. H., Yen, C. J., Sujo-Montes, L., & Roberts, G. A. (2015). Gaming personality and game dynamics in online discussion instructions. Educational Media International, 52 (3), 155–172. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2015.1075099

Tulloch, R. (2014). Reconceptualising gamification: play and pedagogy. Digital Culture & Education, 6 (4), 317–333.

Tvarozek, J., & Brza, T. (2014). Engaging students in online courses through interactive badges. In 2014 International Conference on e-Learning, September 2014, Spain (pp. 89–95). Retrieved from http://elearning-conf.eu/docs/cp14/paper-12.pdf .

Utomo, A. Y., & Santoso, H. B. (2015). Development of gamification-enriched pedagogical agent for e-learning system based on community of inquiry. In Proceedings of the International HCI and UX Conference (CHIuXiD’15), Indonesia (pp. 1–9). doi: 10.1145/2742032.2742033 .

Werbach, K. (2014). (Re) Defining gamification: a process approach, persuasive technology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8462 , 266–272.

Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: how game thinking can revolutionize your business . Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.

Westera, W. (2015). Games are motivating, aren’t they? Disputing the arguments for digital game-based learning. International Journal of Serious Games, 2 (2), 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v2i2.58 .

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. HRD 1623236 “Targeted Infusion Project: Increasing Student Motivation and Engagement in STEM Courses through Gamification”.

Authors’ contributions

Both authors contributed equally towards this article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Winston-Salem State University, 601 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Winston Salem, NC, 27110, USA

Christo Dichev & Darina Dicheva

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Darina Dicheva .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Dichev, C., Dicheva, D. Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 14 , 9 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5

Download citation

Received : 02 November 2016

Accepted : 02 November 2016

Published : 20 February 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Gamification in education
• Gamifying learning
• Critical literature review
• Empirical studies

10 Case Studies of Successful Gamification in Education

Introduction.

Gamification in education, the art of applying game-like elements to non-game contexts, has become a powerful tool in the world of education. By integrating elements such as points, badges, and leaderboards into the learning process, educators can ignite a sense of competition, motivation, and engagement among students. But what does this look like in practice? How are teachers and educational institutions leveraging gamification to enhance learning experiences?

The purpose of this blog post is to delve into the world of gamification in education , providing you, the reader, with a comprehensive list of case studies and examples. From elementary schools to higher education, we’ll explore how gamification is being used to transform traditional learning environments into interactive and engaging experiences.

Whether you’re an educator looking to spice up your teaching methods or a curious reader interested in the latest educational trends, these case studies will offer a glimpse into the innovative ways that gamification is revolutionizing education. So, grab your controller, and let’s embark on this educational journey together!

Are you ready to explore how gamification can enhance your classroom? Read on to discover real-world examples and insights from educators around the globe.

Case Studies in K-12 Education

1. using gamification to ignite student learning | edutopia.

Author: Matthew Farber

• Summary of Challenges and Objectives: Struggling to engage students in complex subjects, the author sought to create an immersive learning experience.
• Solution: Utilization of game-based learning to make subjects more interactive and relatable.
• Gamification Strategies: Integration of game mechanics like quests, levels, and rewards.
• Results and Outcomes: Increased student engagement and motivation, improved understanding of complex subjects.
• Challenges and Limitations: Balancing game elements with educational content; addressed through careful planning and alignment with learning objectives.
• Lessons Learned: Gamification requires thoughtful integration to be effective; it can be a powerful tool when aligned with educational goals.

2. Social Networks and Gamification in Physical Education: A Case Study | IJLTER

Author: Maria Antonietta Impedovo

• Summary of Challenges and Objectives: The need to increase student participation and motivation in physical education.
• Solution: Implementation of social networks and gamification to create a more engaging physical education experience.
• Gamification in Education Strategies: Use of leaderboards, badges, and social collaboration.
• Results and Outcomes: Enhanced student participation, motivation, and physical activity.
• Challenges and Limitations: Ensuring that competition remains healthy and inclusive; addressed through careful monitoring and guidance.
• Lessons Learned: Social elements combined with gamification can foster a positive and engaging learning environment.

3. Gamification in Everyday Classrooms: Observations from Schools in Hong Kong | Frontiers

Author: Dennis K. K. Chan and Allan H. K. Yuen

• Summary of Challenges and Objectives: Addressing the lack of engagement and motivation in everyday classrooms in Hong Kong.
• Solution: Integration of gamification techniques into daily lessons and activities.
• Gamification in Education Strategies: Use of points, levels, and challenges to motivate students.
• Results and Outcomes: Improved student engagement, motivation, and academic performance.
• Challenges and Limitations: Maintaining educational integrity while incorporating game elements; addressed through alignment with curriculum goals.
• Lessons Learned: Gamification can be integrated into everyday lessons to enhance student engagement without compromising educational quality.

4. How Gamification is Revolutionizing Education: Case Studies from Around the World | Instructional Tech Talk

Author: Jeff Herb

• Summary of Challenges and Objectives: Exploring how gamification can be applied globally to enhance education.
• Solution: Compilation of various case studies demonstrating the effectiveness of gamification.
• Gamification in Education Strategies : Diverse strategies include quests, badges, and collaborative challenges.
• Results and Outcomes: Global success in increasing student engagement, motivation, and learning outcomes.
• Challenges and Limitations: Cultural considerations and scalability; addressed through customization and careful planning.
• Lessons Learned: Gamification has universal appeal and can be adapted to various educational contexts.

5. Gamification in K-12 Education Technology: Unlocking the Potential for Student Engagement and Learning | Elucidat

Author: Steve Penfold

• Summary of Challenges and Objectives: Leveraging technology to enhance student engagement in K–12 education.
• Solution: Integration of gamification into eLearning platforms.
• Gamification in Education Strategies : Use of interactive quizzes, badges, and personalized learning paths.
• Results and Outcomes: Increased student engagement, personalized learning experiences, and improved learning outcomes.
• Challenges and Limitations: Balancing technology with personal interaction; addressed through blended learning approaches.
• Lessons Learned: Technology and gamification can work hand-in-hand to create engaging and personalized learning experiences.

6. The 5 Benefits of Gamification | Smithsonian Science Education Center

Author: Not specified

• Summary of Challenges and Objectives: Understanding the Benefits of Gamification in STEM Education
• Solution: Exploration of gamification’s impact on learning and engagement.
• Gamification in Education Strategies : Incorporation of game-like elements into STEM subjects.
• Results and Outcomes: Enhanced student engagement, improved retention, and increased collaboration.
• Challenges and Limitations: General applicability across subjects; addressed through customization.
• Lessons Learned: Gamification offers diverse benefits across various subjects.

Case Studies in Higher Education

1. gamification in higher education (case study on a management subject) | researchgate.

Authors: Maja Pivec and Christian Gütl

• Summary of Challenges and Objectives: Enhancing student engagement in a management subject at the university level.
• Solution: Implementation of gamification techniques to create an interactive learning environment.
• Gamification in Education Strategies : Use of scenarios, challenges, and rewards to simulate real-world management situations.
• Results and Outcomes: Increased student participation, improved critical thinking, and practical application of management concepts.
• Challenges and Limitations: Ensuring relevance to real-world scenarios; addressed through continuous refinement.
• Lessons Learned: Gamification can bridge theory and practice in higher education.

2. How Effective is Gamification in Education? 10 Case Studies and Examples | Axon Park

Author: Axon Park Team

• Summary of Challenges and Objectives: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Gamification Across Different Educational Settings
• Solution: Compilation of 10 case studies showcasing the impact of gamification.
• Gamification in Education Strategies : Various strategies, including virtual reality, leaderboards, and personalized learning paths.
• Results and Outcomes: Demonstrated success in increasing engagement, motivation, and learning outcomes.
• Challenges and Limitations: Scalability and technology access are addressed through diverse implementation methods.
• Lessons Learned: Gamification’s effectiveness is evident across various educational contexts.

3. A Comprehensive List of 90+ Gamification Cases with ROI Stats | Yu-kai Chou

Author: Yu-kai Chou

• Summary of Challenges and Objectives: Providing a comprehensive overview of gamification’s ROI across industries, including education.
• Solution: Compilation of 90+ cases with detailed ROI statistics.
• Gamification in Education Strategies : Diverse strategies ranging from point systems to narrative-driven learning.
• Results and Outcomes: Demonstrated ROI in terms of engagement, retention, and learning effectiveness.
• Challenges and Limitations: Broad applicability; addressed through specific case analysis.
• Lessons Learned: Gamification offers measurable ROI across various sectors, including education.

4. Gamification: 5 Effective Ways to Gamify Learning in Higher Education | Hurix Digital

Author: Hurix Digital Team

• Summary of Challenges and Objectives: Exploring effective ways to implement gamification in higher education.
• Solution: Identification and analysis of five effective gamification methods.
• Gamification in Education Strategies include leaderboards, quizzes, simulations, badges, and collaborative challenges.
• Results and Outcomes: Increased student engagement, collaboration, and practical application of concepts.
• Challenges and Limitations: Balancing gamification with academic rigor; addressed through alignment with learning objectives.
• Lessons Learned: Gamification can be tailored to fit various learning needs and objectives in higher education.

Discussion: Benefits of Gamification in K-12 and Higher Education Classrooms

A. benefits in k–12 classrooms, engagement and motivation.

Gamification has proven to be a powerful tool for igniting student engagement and motivation. For example, in the case study titled Using Gamification to Ignite Student Learning by Edutopia, game-like elements such as quests and rewards were used to make subjects more interactive. Similarly, the Observations From Schools in Hong Kong revealed how the daily integration of gamification enhanced student engagement and motivation.

Personalized Learning Experiences

Customizing learning paths through gamification allows for more personalized experiences. Elucidat’s case study on K–12 education technology demonstrates how gamification can unlock the potential for individualized student engagement and learning.

Enhanced Collaboration and Social Interaction

Gamification also fosters social interaction and collaboration. The IJLTER case study on social networks and gamification in physical education highlights how leaderboards and badges can enhance student participation and collaboration.

B. Benefits in Higher Education Classrooms

Bridging theory and practice.

In higher education, gamification can bridge theoretical knowledge with practical application. A ResearchGate case study on a management subject illustrates how scenarios and challenges can simulate real-world situations.

Measurable ROI and Effectiveness

The effectiveness and ROI of gamification in education are well-documented. Yu-kai Chou’s comprehensive list of 90+ gamification cases provides measurable statistics on engagement, retention, and learning effectiveness.

Diverse and Customizable Strategies

Higher education can benefit from the diverse and customizable nature of gamification. Hurix Digital’s insights into five effective ways to gamify learning showcase how strategies like leaderboards and simulations can be tailored to various learning needs.

C. Common Themes and Insights Across Education Levels

Across both K–12 and higher education, common themes emerge, such as increased engagement, motivation, and the ability to tailor learning experiences. However, challenges such as balancing gamification with educational integrity and addressing scalability must be considered.

Summary of the Section

This discussion has illuminated the multifaceted benefits of gamification across different educational levels. From enhancing engagement to providing personalized learning experiences, gamification is a versatile tool that can transform the educational landscape. The insights from various case studies and examples offer valuable lessons for educators seeking to innovate their teaching methods.

The world of education is ever-evolving, and gamification has emerged as a transformative force, breathing new life into traditional learning environments. Through the exploration of various case studies and examples , we’ve seen how gamification can enhance engagement, motivation, collaboration, and personalized learning across both K–12 and higher education classrooms.

The potential benefits of gamification are vast, but it’s not without its challenges. Balancing game elements with educational content, ensuring inclusivity, and aligning with curriculum goals requires thoughtful planning and execution. Yet, the successes highlighted in this blog post demonstrate that these challenges can be overcome, leading to measurable improvements in student outcomes.

Whether you’re an educator looking to innovate your teaching methods or a student seeking more engaging learning experiences, gamification offers exciting possibilities. It’s more than just a trend; it’s a testament to the power of creativity and innovation in education.

So, why not take the leap? Explore gamification as a tool for enhancing your educational journey. The game of learning has never been more thrilling, and the next move is yours.

Are you ready to embrace gamification in your classroom or learning experience? Share your thoughts, questions, or experiences in the comments below. Let’s continue to learn and grow together!

Richard Campbell

Richard Campbell is an experienced English professor in South Korea with over 20 years of teaching experience across all levels of education. With a doctorate in education, Richard is passionate about promoting language learning and using innovative approaches, including AI writing tools, to inspire his students.

Recent Posts

• Transforming Lesson Plans: A K-12 Educator’s Guide to Customizing GPTs
• Reviewing Magic School AI: A Comprehensive Guide
• Conker AI 2024: Revolutionize Teaching with Powerful Tools
• Maximizing EFL Learning with Perplexity AI: Strategies and Prompting Techniques
• Navigating the Future of Learning: A Personal Guide to Using Perplexity AI in Your Classroom

Recent Comments

Trending now.

• STEM Toys for 2023: Discover the 20 Best Educational Toys for Your Child December 2, 2023
• 20 Creative Ways to Use ChatGPT in the Classroom April 7, 2023
• The Best AI Projects for Kids of All Ages August 24, 2023

Recently Posted

NESMaker in Higher Education: A Creative Outlet for Students

In 1996, Ange McAuley was just 11 years old when ABC's Four Corners profiled her family living on Brisbane's outskirts.

At the time her mother was pregnant with her sixth child and her father had long ago moved back to Perth.

WARNING: This story contains details that may be distressing to some readers.

It was a story about child protection and the program was profiling the role of community volunteers helping her mother, who had been in and out of mental health wards.

Ange was the eldest and it fell to her to get her younger siblings ready for school.

By the time the new baby arrived, she would stay home and change nappies.

"It was pretty crazy back then — I wasn't going to school a lot," she said.

By that age she was already holding a secret — she'd been sexually abused at age six by her stepfather, who would later be convicted of the crime.

"Back in the nineties, a lot of people kept stuff hidden and it wasn't spoken about outside of the family," she said.

"I've carried all these big burdens that weren't even mine. Sexual abuse happened to me. I didn't ask for it."

She says the trauma triggered a lifetime of mental health problems from substance abuse and self-harm as a teen, right through to post-natal depression.

Hidden source of our mental health crisis

A new study from the University of Sydney's Matilda Centre has established just how much Australia's mental health crisis can be traced back to this kind of childhood abuse and neglect.

The research has found that childhood maltreatment is responsible for up to 41 per cent of common mental health conditions including anxiety, depression, substance abuse, self-harm and suicide attempts.

The research, which draws on a 2023 meta-analysis of 34 research studies covering 54,000 people, found maltreatment accounted for 41 per cent of suicide attempts in Australia, 35 per cent of self-harm cases and 21 per cent of depression episodes.

It defined childhood maltreatment as physical, sexual, emotional abuse, emotional or physical neglect and domestic violence before the age of 18.

Lead researcher Lucy Grummitt said it is the first piece of work to quantify the direct impact of child abuse on long-term mental health. 

It found if childhood maltreatment was eradicated it would avert more than 1.8 million cases of depression, anxiety and substance use disorders.

"It shows just how many people in Australia are suffering from mental health conditions that are potentially preventable," she said.

Dr Grummitt said they found in the year 2023 child maltreatment in Australia accounted for 66,143 years of life lost and 118,493 years lived with disability because of the associated mental health conditions.

"We know that when a child is exposed to this level of stress or trauma, it does trigger a lot of changes in the brain and body," Dr Grummitt said.

"Things like altering the body's stress response will make a child hyper-vigilant to threat. It can lead to difficulties with emotion regulation, being able to cope with difficult emotions."

While some areas of maltreatment are trending down, figures from the landmark Australian child maltreatment study last year show rising rates of sexual abuse by adolescents and emotional abuse.

That study found more than one in three females and one in seven males aged 16 to 24 had experienced childhood sexual abuse.

Dr Grummit says childhood trauma can affect how the brain processes emotions once children become teens.

"It could be teenagers struggling to really cope with difficult emotions and certainly trauma can play a huge role in causing those difficult emotions," she said.

Mental health scars emerge early

For Ange, the trauma of her early years first showed itself in adolescence when she started acting out — she remembers punching walls and cars, binge drinking and using drugs.

"I would get angry and just scream," she said.

"I used to talk back to the teachers. I didn't finish school. Mum kicked me out a lot as a teenager. I was back and forth between mum and dad's."

By the time she disclosed her abuse, she was self-harming and at one point tried to take her own life.

"I was just done," she said.

"I was sick of having to get up every day. I didn't want to do it anymore."

Later on, she would have inappropriate relationships with much older men and suffered from depression, including post-natal depression.

"It's definitely affected relationships, it's affected my friendships, it's affected my intimate relationships," she said.

"Flashbacks can come in at the most inappropriate times — you're back in that moment and you feel guilt and shame.

"I feel like it's held me back a lot."

Calls for mental health 'immunisation'

Dr Grummitt said childhood abuse and neglect should be treated as a national public health priority.

In Australia, suicide is the leading cause of death for young people. 

"It's critical that we are investing in prevention rather than putting all our investments into treatment of mental health problems," she said.

Her team has suggested child development and mental health check-ins become a regular feature across a person's lifetime and have proposed a mental health "immunisation schedule".

Chief executive of mental health charity Prevention United, Stephen Carbone, said they estimate that less than 1 per cent of mental health funding goes toward prevention.

"There's been a big steady increase in per capita funding for mental health over the last 30 years but that hasn't translated into reductions," Dr Carbone, a GP, said. 

"You're not going to be able to prevent mental health conditions unless you start to tackle some of these big causes, in particular child maltreatment."

He said most of Australia's child protection system was about reacting to problems rather than trying to prevent them.

"If you're not tackling the upstream risk factors or putting in place protective factors you just keep getting more and more young people experiencing problems and services being overwhelmed," he said.

Now a mother of two teens herself, Ange says she wants to break the cycle and has been going to therapy regularly to help identify and avoid destructive patterns that she's seen herself fall into.

"I love my girls so much and I want better for them."

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Generation overwhelmed: these kids fought back against a national health crisis — and won.

'It's a really massive deal': Unpacking what's going on with Gen Z and ways to improve teen mental health

'The air went out of the room': Shocking new statistics on the abuse and neglect of Australian children

• Child Abuse
• Child Health and Behaviour
• Mental Health
• Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
• University of New South Wales