Encyclopedia Gamification Education2023

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/374420015
Gamification in Education
Article in Encyclopedia · October 2023

DOI: 10.3390/encyclopedia3040089
CITATIONS READS
19 3,914
2 authors:
Athanasios Christopoulos Stylianos Mystakidis

University of Turku University of Patras
55 PUBLICATIONS 1,048 CITATIONS 116 PUBLICATIONS 2,313 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Stylianos Mystakidis on 08 October 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Entry
Gamification in Education
Athanasios Christopoulos 1,2, * and Stylianos Mystakidis 3,4
1 Department of Informatics and Telecommunications, University of Ioannina, 47100 Arta, Greece

2 Turku Research Institute for Learning Analytics, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland
3 School of Natural Sciences, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece; smyst@upatras.gr
4 School of Humanities, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patras, Greece
* Correspondence: athanasios.christopoulos@kic.uoi.gr
Definition: Gamification, or gameful design, refers to the strategic application of game design
principles, mechanics, and elements into non-game environments. It is often facilitated using digital
platforms, aiming to solve problems, increase engagement, and motivate individuals towards their
goals. The technique fosters a gameful and interactive experience, enhancing perceived autonomy,
competence, and relatedness among users. With roots in fields like education, business, marketing,
and services, gamification is a versatile tool that serves to enrich user experience and create value in a
multitude of settings. The widespread impact of gamification across various sectors has transformed
traditional methods of engagement, notably in education.
Keywords: gamification; education; mixed reality; metaverse; serious games; engagement; motivation
1. Introduction
Play is a fundamental human practice that can spark curiosity and facilitate skills
acquisition and behavioral change. Fundamental research in the field of affective neuro-
science has revealed seven basic emotions that humans share with other mammals [1].
Several of these emotions are quite expected and part of everyday life and activity, such
as fear, anger, and care. Two of these emotions are quite surprising and of special interest
to education: exploration (seeking) and play [1], with each one of these being essential
elements of games. Games can be defined as rule-based systems of meaningful choices
Citation: Christopoulos, A.;
towards desirable goals. Games such as sports and board games have been the staple of
Mystakidis, S. Gamification in
ancient human civilizations [2].
Education. Encyclopedia 2023, 3,
Gamification was first coined in 2008 by Shirky and Terrill [3]. Gamification stems
1223–1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/
grammatically from the verb gamify, which was presumably first used by Richard Bartle
encyclopedia3040089
in his work on the first Multi-User Dungeon (MUD), one of the first computer-generated
Academic Editor: Raffaele Barretta gameful and social virtual worlds [3]. Gamification (or gameful design) is one popular
motivation enhancement method [4]. Other methods include playful design (or playifica-
Received: 13 August 2023
Revised: 27 September 2023
tion), toys, and serious games. Playful design is a quick and simple method to integrate
Accepted: 28 September 2023
elementary game attributes or aesthetics in a non-gaming educational context for atten-
Published: 2 October 2023
tion and interest enhancement [5]. It relies upon simple qualitative elements, such as
themes, narratives, characters, and metaphors [6]. Toys are self-contained objects that can
be utilized for playful purposes. One toy-based method is Lego serious play [7]. Serious
games are games with a purpose beyond entertainment. Serious games in education consti-
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. tute complex systems with goals, rules, and game mechanics that merge gameplay with
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. learning [8]. One example of serious game type is the serious escape room or educational
This article is an open access article escape game [8,9].
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Importance and Impact
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
The integration of gamification techniques into various sectors of the economy and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
society has been a notable trend. A systematic review has revealed that the domain of
4.0/).
Encyclopedia 2023, 3, 1223–1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3040089 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/encyclopedia

Encyclopedia 2023, 3 1224
education and training emerges as a primary area where gamification is both implemented
and researched extensively [10].
Within the educational landscape, gamification’s potential for transformative impact
extends beyond merely making learning ‘fun’. Research suggests that well-designed gami-
fied environments can foster a range of cognitive and emotional benefits, such as enhanced
problem-solving abilities, collaborative skills, and resilience in the face of challenges [11].
Further, gamification can be particularly potent in nurturing intrinsic motivation, thereby
contributing to long-term engagement and learning gains [12,13].
As an instructional approach, it extends to various disciplines (science, technology,
engineering, mathematics, arts), with each employing unique mechanics and reward
systems tailored to the learning outcomes of the discipline [14]. Indicative examples
include point-based grading systems [15]; leaderboards for academic achievements [16];
and even more intricate constructs, such as game-based learning platforms that simulate
real-world scenarios [17]. Beyond K-12 education, gamification has also infiltrated higher
education and professional training environments, where interactive online courses often
employ game elements to enhance learner commitment [18,19].
Given the multidimensional benefits and versatile applicability of gamification in vari-
ous educational contexts, the present work delves into the critical elements that contribute
to the effective integration of gamification in education educational settings.
2. Design Frameworks
A systematic review of gamification design revealed 40 frameworks from various
fields [20]. Out of these frameworks, six were selected and presented based on their
popularity in the academic and professional gamification community. Moreover, the first
three frameworks can be considered as the theoretical backbone of many gamification
models and methods. Table 1 summarizes the features of these essential frameworks.
Table 1. Overview of gamification design frameworks.
Gamification Design Essential Structural

Applicability
Framework Elements
Gamification design method
Game mechanics,
MDA targeting specific
dynamics, aesthetics
user emotions
Design of gamified loops of
Motivation, ability,
Fogg behavioral model engagement towards
prompts (triggers)
behavioral change
Conceptual model aiming at
Attention, relevance,
ARCS sustainable learner motivation
confidence, satisfaction
and positive experience
Epic meaning,
Human-focused gamification
accomplishment,
design around eight basic
Oktalysis empowerment, ownership,
motivational drives toward
relatedness, scarcity,
user engagement optimization
curiosity, avoidance
Reflection, exposition (story), Gamified, storified experience
RECIPE choice, information, design towards meaningful,
play, engagement deep learning
Objectives, target behaviors, Sequential, iterative
6D player’s profile, activity loops, gamification design model
fun, deployment based on design thinking
In the context of games, the mechanics–dynamics–aesthetics (MDA) framework has

been used to break down and analyze the structural elements [21]. Mechanics are player ac-
tions defined by system rules, e.g., points, levels, quests. Dynamics are system affordances
created by mechanics, e.g., antagonistic player vs. player competition. Aesthetics define the
affective impact on users. The same framework can be used in reverse by designers to target
specific aesthetics and emotional responses, such as challenge, curiosity, self-expression,
or sensation.
The Fogg behavioral model posits that human behavior is influenced by three factors:
motivation, ability, and prompts or triggers [22]. Motivation is one of the most important
affective aspects of learning, because it influences the cognitive processes of learning.
Motivation has been described as the engine of learning [23]. When people like and
enjoy online learning experiences that are meaningful to them, they tend to engage, take
initiatives, act, and set and achieve their relevant goals in it. The level of ability in any
context determines which action each player can execute. The difficulty level of gameful
actions should optimally increase progressively and correspond to players’ individualized
ability to trigger the sense of flow. Prompts or triggers are gamification mechanisms that
can be used to set up loops of engagement.
The central place of motivation in education is also recognized by the attention–
relevance–confidence–satisfaction (ARCS) model [24]. This model aims at enhancing and
sustaining the level of students’ motivation by first gaining their attention and establishing
how learning is personally relevant and meaningful for them. Next, learning must be
arranged so as to promote students’ confidence to complete and ensure that their overall
satisfaction remains high.
The Oktalysis gamification framework further analyses the motivational drives in
eight player incentives, such as epic meaning, creativity, accomplishment, social influence,
and unpredictability [25].
The element of intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic rewards in a gamification sys-
tem is prevalent in the proposed ‘RECIPE’ model of meaningful gamification [26]. This
model suggests that gamified experiences should be organized around the essential compo-
nents of playful exploration, narrative exposition, freedom of choice, effective information
as well as feedback systems, engagement with peers, and reflection towards deep and
meaningful learning.
The 6D model [27] provides a series of sequential steps for the design of a gami-
fied system using a backwards analysis. It starts with the definition of the overall ob-
jectives and the associated target behaviors of the users of the system. The next step
involves understanding the player types, characteristics and expectations. All these ele-
ments inform the choice of strategies and tools for short- and long-term engagement and
progression loops.
3. Application Techniques
To understand gamification, it is important to become familiar with the fundamental
components that make games engaging and fun (Figure 1). These include game me-
chanics [28], learning mechanics [28,29], and game aesthetics [30]. Below, we provide an
in-depth exploration of each of these components.
Encyclopedia 2023, 33
Encyclopedia 2023, 1226
1226
Figure 1. Overview of application techniques.

Figure 1. Overview of application techniques.
3.1. Classification of Player Types
3.1. Classification of Player Types
Researchers have attempted to classify the various player types in accordance with
Researcherspersonality
the individuals’ have attempted
traits, to classifyand
interests, the preferences.
various player
Thetypes
mostin accordance
widely knownwith
tax-
the individuals’ personality traits, interests, and preferences. The most
onomy has been created by the authors of [31], who categorized players into four widely known
main
taxonomy has been
types: achievers, created socializers,
explorers, by the authors
andof [31], who
killers. categorized
However, players
ever since, intoplayer
a new four main
type
types: achievers, explorers, socializers, and killers. However, ever since, a new player type
has emerged describing those people who find strong motivation in creating interactive
has emerged describing those people who find strong motivation in creating interactive
content, the so-called ‘creators’ or ‘builders’ [32]. Other practitioners differentiate between
content, the so-called ‘creators’ or ‘builders’ [32]. Other practitioners differentiate between
intrinsically and extrinsically motivated player types and propose additional types, such
intrinsically and extrinsically motivated player types and propose additional types, such
as the ‘philanthropist’ [33]. The main motivational drives and indicative gamification ele-
as the ‘philanthropist’ [33]. The main motivational drives and indicative gamification
ments of each essential player type are illustrated in Table 2.
elements of each essential player type are illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2. Classification of player types.
Table 2. Classification of player types.
Player Type Core Motivational Drives Gamification Elements
Player Type Core Motivational Drives Gamification Elements
Achiever Mastery, competency, accomplishment, excellence Goals, rewards, quests, levels, badges
Mastery, competency, Goals, rewards, quests,
Achiever Choice, open worlds, branching scenarios,
Explorer Autonomy, discovery, curiosityaccomplishment, excellence levels, badges
Easter eggs, bonus content
Choice, open worlds,
Socializer Relatedness, community, communication Teams, social network (contacts/friends)
Autonomy, discovery,
Explorer branching scenarios, Easter
Killer/disruptor Winning, drama, status, attention, change curiosityCompetition, challenge,
eggs,anonymity, voting
bonus content
Builder/creator Creativity, art, crafts Modding,
Relatedness, community, creativity tools, customization
Teams, social network
Philanthropist Socializer
Purpose, meaning, altruism communication Gifts, sharing, mentoring
(contacts/friends)
Winning, drama, status, Competition, challenge,
In Killer/disruptor
either case, the boundaries among these
attention, categories are not strictly
change limited,
anonymity, votingas indi-
viduals may express traits belonging to more than one role. Therefore, the descriptions
Modding, creativity
Builder/creator
provided Creativity,
below are indicative and should be art, craftsonly as a guide to identify students’
utilized tools, customization
motivational traits prior to designing and implementing gamified educational activities.
Philanthropist Purpose, meaning, altruism Gifts, sharing, mentoring
In either case, the boundaries among these categories are not strictly limited, as
individuals may express traits belonging to more than one role. Therefore, the descriptions
provided below are indicative and should be utilized only as a guide to identify students’
motivational traits prior to designing and implementing gamified educational activities.
3.1.1. Achiever
‘Achievers’ see personal-goal setting as the number-one priority [31]. Their main goal
is to collect accomplishments, rewards (e.g., points, trophies, badges, items, levels) and
anything else that makes one’s progress (status) visible to others. Their main motivation
stems from the intrinsic need to be competent. This also defines their primary objective,
which includes the completion of challenging or demanding tasks, which often require
great time and effort investment. In the educational context, achievers can be paralleled to
the high-level students who strive for mastery and aim to excel in any given assignment.
3.1.2. Explorer
‘Explorers’ are free spirits; they find pleasure when discovering new places and
features that underpin the flow of the game world [31]. In addition, they strive in mastering
the game mechanics and dynamics that govern the functions of the game. Their ultimate
goal is to understand the technicalities and uniquenesses of the game so as to craft theories
and strategies that can help them and/or other players to take advantage. In the educational
context, explorers are curious learners who enjoy the learning journey and are attracted by
thematic or integrated approaches.
3.1.3. Socializer
‘Socializers’ are casual players who are foremostly interested in networking with
others [31]. They value collaboration and teamwork and prioritize the development of
meaningful, long-lasting relationships. In other words, instead of merely playing the game,
they prefer to utilize the communicative facilities offered to create social and emotional
connections. In addition, they are usually involved in community-related activities, which
include administrative and managerial responsibilities. In the educational context, social-
izers are all about ‘fun’. They feel attraction towards the social aspects of learning and
perform best when engaged in collaborative learning activities.
3.1.4. Killer/Griefer
Killers are highly competitive players who like to act on others [31]. Participating
in competitions and tournaments (individual or team-based)—with the only intention to
win—is the only motivational incentive. Like achievers, they are attracted by means
and ends that lead to reputation and/or status increase and do anything within their
abilities to beat their opponents. Griefers (also known as internet trolls) like to provoke
and cause drama. To satisfy their need for attention, they disrupt others’ experiences by
either harassing or scamming them. In the educational context, killers are those students
who are not taking anything at face value; they like being challenged and often ask the
most questions. On the antipode, griefers are those students who demonstrate disruptive
behavior with the aim to disturb the flow of the lesson.
3.1.5. Builder (New)

Builders can be (arguably) considered an addition to the aforementioned player
types [34]. The term refers to those individuals who (solely or together) engage in recre-
ational activities that involve (3D) content creation and/or animation, using both native
and third-party tools. For builders, unlike professionals in the field, monetary compensa-
tion is not always the primary goal. As a buzzword, it became more prominent after the
emergence of the so-called metaverse; a futuristic concept that describes and envisions a
persistent, shared, interconnected, 3D virtual space. In the educational context, builders
can be considered the students who are naturally inclined or interest in arts and crafts.
3.2. Game Mechanics

Game mechanics encompass sets of rules and feedback mechanisms designed to facili-
betate
adapted andgameplay
engaging integrated(Figure
to introduce
2). Oftengame-like
consideredfeatures into non-gaming
foundational elements, theyenvironments
can be
[28].
adapted and integrated to introduce game-like features into non-gaming environments [28]. and
Different game mechanics are used to leverage players’ motivational incentives
willingness to engage.
Different game For are
mechanics instance,
used tothe motivation
leverage players’driver for the incentives
motivational collectorsand
may be ad-
will-
dressed
ingnesswith digitalFor
to engage. goods and the
instance, themotivation
motivation for the
driver achievement
for the hunters
collectors may may be ad-
be addressed
with digital
dressed goods and the
by leaderboards ormotivation
badges. Infor the achievement
a similar huntersmechanics
manner, failure may be addressed by to
are utilized
leaderboards or badges. In a similar manner, failure mechanics are utilized
communicate the actions that players should and should not perform in a playful manner. to communicate
In the actions gamification
a holistic that players should
design,and should not perform
a combination in a playful
of different manner. In
motivational a holistic
drivers may be
gamification design, a combination of different motivational drivers may
at play; yet, when learners are confronted with several game mechanics elements, it may be at play; yet,
when learners are confronted with several game mechanics elements, it may be difficult to
be difficult to focus on the learning objectives. In greater detail, fifty-one (51) mechanics
focus on the learning objectives. In greater detail, fifty-one (51) mechanics have been com-
have been compiled in the periodic table of gamification elements [35]. Several of them
piled in the periodic table of gamification elements [35]. Several of them can be associated
can be associated
with the with theofmain
main motivations motivations
different of different
player types. Some of theplayer
mosttypes.
popularSome of the most
gamification
popular gamification
mechanics mechanics
are presented below. are presented below.
Figure 2. 2.
Figure Overview
Overviewofofgame
game mechanics.
mechanics.
3.2.1.
3.2.1. Avatars/Personas
Avatars/Personas
Avatars are digital representations of players within the game environment, often
Avatars are digital representations of players within the game environment, often
embodying the player’s persona or character within the game. They enable players to
embodying the player’s persona or character within the game. They enable players to in-
interact with the game world, its inhabitants, and other players, effectively becoming the
teract withproxy
player’s the game
in the world, its inhabitants,
digital realm. Avatars inand other
gaming players,
can effectively
vary, spanning from becoming
straight- the
player’s
forward two-dimensional icons to intricate three-dimensional designs, influenced bystraight-
proxy in the digital realm. Avatars in gaming can vary, spanning from the
forward
game’s two-dimensional
essence and designicons to intricate
[35]. For three-dimensional
many players, designs,
these avatars morph intoinfluenced
a reflection by
of the
game’s essence
themselves, and design
symbolizing [35].
their Forfootprint,
digital many players, these
status, and avatarswithin
triumphs morphthatinto a reflection
virtual uni-
of verse [36]. In view
themselves, of education,
symbolizing theiravatars
digital empower
footprint,students
status, andby offering
triumphsthem a distinctive
within that virtual
avenue [36].
universe to showcase
In viewtheir individualism,
of education, imagination,
avatars empower and personal
students tastes, bethem
by offering it through
a distinc-
the altering of their looks, clothing, embellishments, or even inherent
tive avenue to showcase their individualism, imagination, and personal tastes, characteristics [37].be it
through the altering of their looks, clothing, embellishments, or even inherent character-
istics [37]. Such customization can amplify engagement levels, as students might find
themselves emotionally tethered to their avatars, inducing feelings of empowerment and
control in their educational journey [38]. Moreover, avatars offer a conducive space for
Such customization can amplify engagement levels, as students might find themselves
emotionally tethered to their avatars, inducing feelings of empowerment and control in
their educational journey [38]. Moreover, avatars offer a conducive space for practicing
diverse social and communicative aptitudes within the protective confines of the digital
realm, thereby enabling students to delve into varied roles and situations [39].
3.2.2. Points
Most games fundamentally rely on points as a primary game mechanism due to their
efficiency in providing an easy-to-understand metric to gauge accomplishments or track
advancement. Players typically earn points for fulfilling objectives, reaching milestones,
or making noteworthy achievements within gameplay. Such points not only quantify
progress but also play a crucial role in sustaining player involvement, as they provide
tangible feedback in response to their in-game actions [40]. As an illustration, points can
act as extrinsic incentives by challenging players to maintain their engagement with the
gaming interface [41]. Point systems often vary according to the nature of the game and
can be tailored to match the desired learning outcomes [42]. As such, the utility of points
extends beyond simple numerical value; it represents progress, learning advancement, and
achievement, thus enhancing the players’ intrinsic motivation towards task completion [43].
3.2.3. Turns
In turn-based games, the progression is segmented into distinct, clearly delineated
phases known as ‘turns’. Turn-based games allow players to ‘pause’ the game world before
making an action. However, not all game turns are alike. In some games, players may
be allowed a period of analysis (time) before performing a game action, whereas in other
occasions, turns may represent longer periods, such as years, months, weeks, or days. For
instance, in wargames, the amount of time each turn represents is usually specified [44].
On the other hand, in sports games, a turn represents the ‘one action play’ that players can
perform during their round, but the amount of time varies [32]. The most widely adopted
approaches in the educational context are timed turns and time compression, both of which
aim at adding time pressure to players to think and commit their actions [45].
3.2.4. Levels
Levels in a game are segmented portions or stages that players progress through as
they engage with the game. They often represent an increase in difficulty or complexity
as a means of presenting new challenges to the player. Attaining advanced levels gives
players an affirmation of their proficiency in specific game techniques or educational targets,
instilling a feeling of achievement and forward movement [46]. Within the educational
sphere, levels can correlate to distinct learning segments or subjects. Progressing to an
elevated level is indicative of fulfilling one learning goal and demonstrates preparedness
to venture into more intricate subjects [47]. Moreover, these gradations lend a coherent
framework to both the gaming and educational journey, ensuring that the entire experience
is structured and digestible, mitigating feelings of being overwhelmed for both players
and students [48].
3.2.5. Badges
Badges visually symbolize the accomplishments players attain after achieving certain
targets or benchmarks within gameplay. These icons not only recognize and reward play-
ers for their capacity and dedication but also heighten their drive and involvement [49].
Beyond individual recognition, badges also present a communal aspect. They enable play-
ers to showcase their successes to peers, creating an atmosphere of both fellowship and
completeness [50]. When applied to education, badges pinpoint mastery of particular edu-
cational goals or commend active involvement and contribution [51]. Mirroring the utility
of levels, badges also offer a reflection of achievement, granting learners insights into their
advancement and clarifying their position in the educational process [52]. Furthermore,
the process of striving for badges can encourage critical thinking and problem solving, as
learners may need to figure out how to earn a particular badge, thereby enhancing the
learning process.
3.2.6. Challenges/Quests
A quest refers to a specific task that a player-controlled character or group undertakes
to earn a reward. In quest-based games, players engage in interrelated activities that
usually involve movement across different action points [53]. The successful completion
of a quest or set of quests (questline) leads to the attainment of a concrete objective or
reward [54]. As an educational approach, Quest-Based Learning is structured as a sequence
of briefing, action, and debriefing [55]. For this reason, the integration of this method
is usually associated with the conduct of activities that involve problem solving, as the
student players need to successfully address the posed challenges in order to progress and
eventually complete the assigned task [56].
3.2.7. Rewards
Reward systems have a two-fold role: they act as incentives for players or as a means
to alleviate potential disappointment. The reward mechanisms can be classified into the
following categories: extrinsic motivation rewards (e.g., badges, points, and physical or
virtual goods), which are responsible for attracting users’ interest in the experience [57],
and intrinsic motivation rewards (e.g., progress bars, notifications, status in leaderboards),
which ensure the user’s long-term engagement [58]. Similarly, the delivery system can
take different forms, such as random rewards, fixed reward schedule, and time-dependent
rewards [59]. Some of the most notable types of rewards include tokens, achievements,
feedback messages, experience points, item granting, and content unlocking [60]. Players
can use the obtained rewards to make game progress or as a means to demonstrate their
knowledge advancement to instructors and peers [57].
3.2.8. Leaderboards
Leaderboards visually rank players based on their achievements. The structural
elements of leaderboards can be divided into two levels: the macro-level (overall perfor-
mance) and the micro-level (performance in specific tasks) [61]. Despite the differences
observed regarding the provided information at each level, the key structural elements
remain similar [62]. Considering the educational context, a typical leaderboard usually
displays information related to students’ identity (name or nickname), followed by their
ranking, which is defined by either their learning progress (e.g., points, tasks completed) or
performance (e.g., grade, budges earned) [63]. As such, it allows students to gauge their
performance relative to their peers.
3.2.9. Non-Player Characters

Non-Player Characters (NPCs) are integral elements in many video games. They
act as intermediaries who offer quests or help to players toward the completion of the
storyline. The key design elements and characteristics of NPCs are decided following a
three-tier approach, which includes the global design level, which concerns the appear-
ance of the NPC (i.e., human/non-human, animal, cartoon) and the motion capabilities
(i.e., static/animated) [64]; the medium design level, which regards the technical aspects
of the NPC (i.e., role, behavior, auditory output) [65]; and the detail design level, which
relates to the visual presence of the NPC (i.e., gender, age, clothing) [66]. In educational
settings, NPCs (also known as Pedagogical Agents) are integrated as a means to facilitate
learning processes by providing learners additional instructional support and guidance,
especially during the absence of the teacher or instructor [67].
3.3. Learning Mechanics

3.3. Learning Mechanics
Learning mechanics refer to foundational patterns of behavior or interactive building
Learning mechanics refer to foundational patterns of behavior or interactive building
blocks
blocksthat
thata alearner
learnerengages
engages with (Figure3).
with (Figure 3).They
Theycan
canbebe formulated
formulated either
either as individual
as individual
actions
actions or as interconnected actions, with both constituting the core learning activities thatthat
or as interconnected actions, with both constituting the core learning activities
are frequently
are frequentlyrepeated
repeated in
in aa game
game [28].
[28].Their
Theirkey
keyprinciples
principlesareare grounded
grounded on established
on established
learning
learningtheories
theoriesor ormodels
models and constitute
constitutethethemedium
mediumthatthat ‘translates’
‘translates’ thethe learning
learning goalsgoals
into
intogameplay
gameplayelements
elements [29].
[29]. Every educationalgame
Every educational gamehas
has learning
learning mechanics
mechanics thatthat govern
govern
therules
the rulesand
and the
the interplay
interplaymodalities
modalities used to motivate
used and and
to motivate engage players
engage to complete
players the
to complete
game
the game and ultimately
and ultimately expand theirtheir
expand knowledge
knowledgeand/or develop
and/or their skills.
develop their skills.
Figure 3.3.Overview
Figure Overviewofoflearning
learning mechanics.
mechanics.
Below,we
Below, wemap
map and
and discuss
discuss the
thekey
keyelements
elementsofofthe most
the widely
most adopted
widely adoptedlearning
learning
mechanisms that can be utilized across different educational levels and contexts.
mechanisms that can be utilized across different educational levels and contexts.
3.3.1. Action/Task
3.3.1. Action/Task
In digital learning scenarios, students are expected to perform a set of repetitive actions
In digital
in order learning
to complete thescenarios,
given tasks.students
Educationalare expected
games framed to perform
under thisa set of repetitive
category mainly ac-
tions in order to complete the given tasks. Educational games framed
rely on the principles of problem-based or task-based learning, whereas in cases where under this category
the
mainly relyareonrequired
students the principles
to work of problem-based
together to achieve or task-based
a common goal,learning, whereas
it could also in cases
be related
where the students
to collaborative are required
learning. Dependingto work together
on the naturetoofachieve a common
the educational goal,
task, it could
students canalso
bedevelop
related atowide
collaborative learning.(e.g.,
range of cognitive Depending
planning,on the nature
critical of the
thinking, educational
problem solving)task,
[68],stu-
technical
dents (e.g., knowledge
can develop a widedevelopment with new
range of cognitive techniques
(e.g., or practicing
planning, already known
critical thinking, problem
techniques)
solving) [68], [69], or social
technical (e.g.,
(e.g., knowledge,
knowledge information,with
development or opinion exchange) skills
new techniques [70].
or practicing
Educational activities associated with this mechanic include role playing,
already known techniques) [69], or social (e.g., knowledge, information, or opinion ex- paired/group
discussions, exploration, observation, and other ‘hands-on’ activities.
change) skills [70]. Educational activities associated with this mechanic include role play-
ing, paired/group
3.3.2. Educationaldiscussions,
Tutorial exploration, observation, and other ‘hands-on’ activities.
Educational tutorials are instructor-guided and/or self-paced activities that enable
3.3.2. Educational Tutorial
learners to acquire theoretical knowledge or consolidate their practical skills [71]. As a learn-
ingEducational tutorials
mechanic, it draws fromarethe
instructor-guided and/or self-paced activities that
principles of the Constructivist/Constructionist enable
models
learners to acquire
and occasionally theoretical
involves knowledge
collaboration amongor students
consolidate
(e.g.,their practical
on course skills [71].
assignments) As a
[72].
Depending
learning on the nature
mechanic, of the
it draws educational
from subject, they
the principles canConstructivist/Constructionist
of the be discussion-based, where
models and occasionally involves collaboration among students (e.g., on course assign-
ments) [72]. Depending on the nature of the educational subject, they can be discussion-
based, where the focus is on the deeper exploration of the course content through
the focus is on the deeper exploration of the course content through discussions and de-
bates [73], or may involve hands-on activities, where the emphasis is on the development of
practical skills [74]. In either case, the added value of this approach is also the opportunity
offered to learners to participate in (follow-up) question-and-answer sessions. For the
integration of this mechanic, the use of diverse multimedia resources is recommended
(e.g., PowerPoint presentations, videos, NPCs).
3.3.3. Demonstration
Virtual learning environments empower educators to illustrate abstract topics and con-
cepts that may be challenging or unfeasible to delve into within traditional classrooms [75].
Educational games framed under this category mainly rely on the principles of Behav-
iorism, when simulating scenarios that highlight the relationships between ‘cause and
effect’ [76], or on the Experiential Learning approach, when the students are requested
to observe and imitate the actions that the educator in charge performs [77]. In cases
where the educational activities involve interplay among the students (e.g., competition,
collaboration/cooperation), this approach can also be linked to Social Learning theory [78].
Educational activities associated with this mechanic include simulations, 3D modeling and
programming, scenario-based virtual field trips, and guided explorations via storytelling.
3.3.4. Assessment/Feedback
Beyond the conduct of activities that facilitate learning, designers and practitioners
can also integrate assessment-related tasks as a means to enable learners to acquire insights
related to their learning progress and advancement. In serious games, learner assess-
ment can be continuous (e.g., proceeding from level to level) with scaffolding difficulty
(e.g., completing more demanding tasks) [79] or stealth (i.e., embedded in the gamified
activities) [80]. These elements ensure that the experience of flow remains unaffected while
also allowing educators to obtain useful information related to learners’ knowledge and
skills construction. A typical approach to facilitate assessment in digital learning environ-
ments involves capturing, recording, and extracting learners’ behaviors using user (digital)
logs [81]. Following completion of an assignment unit, it is important to also consider the
provision of feedback. In the context of gamified activities, feedback can be provided both
during (e.g., failure/replay, provision of hints/help) and after the game (e.g., reflection
moments, watching others playing, review of recent activity) [82]. The nature of feedback
can take multiple forms (e.g., text, audiovisual) and can be used either in isolation or
as a combination [83].
3.3.5. Reflection/Discussion
Following completion of the educational tasks, educators need to provide opportu-
nities for critical reflection and discussion [84]. As a process, it can take place outside the
game context (debriefing) and may include reflective diaries, mentoring, and game critique.
Beside the direct benefits that this process has for learners, it also enables instructional
designers to evaluate whether the choice of games met students’ motivation and interest,
the particular elements they liked more, and the aspects of the games that challenged
them the most, as well as how they managed to overcome the presented challenges [85].
Discussion-based, group-oriented, or peer-to-peer reflection can be carried out with more
advanced learners based on a set of predefined guidelines [86,87].
3.4. Game Aesthetics

Aesthetics, in the context of game design, refers to the player experience (Figure 4).
Players experience the aesthetics first and then immerse in the game flow (dynamics,
mechanics) [30]. The design of the characters and that of the surrounding environment
describe the emotional responses that the game developers aimed at evoking when the
players interact with the game system. Game designers have classified the fundamental
aesthetics types in accordance with the emotions they evoke as follows: (a) sensation (games
Encyclopedia2023,
Encyclopedia 2023,33 1233
1233
centered on
centered on sensory
sensory pleasure),
pleasure), (b)
(b) fantasy
fantasy (games
(games rooted
rooted inin imagination),
imagination), (c)
(c) narrative
narrative
(story-driven games),
(story-driven games), (d)
(d) challenge
challenge (games
(games designed
designed as as obstacle
obstacle courses),
courses), (e)
(e) fellowship
fellowship
(gamespromoting
(games promotingsocial
socialinteraction),
interaction),(f)(f) discovery
discovery (games
(games exploring
exploring unknown
unknown territo-
territories),
ries),
(g) (g) expression
expression (games
(games focusedfocused on self-discovery),
on self-discovery), andsubmission
and (h) (h) submission (games
(games meantmeant
for
for leisurely
leisurely pastime).
pastime). Depending
Depending ononthethe themeofofthe
theme theeducational
educationalgame
gamemore
morethan than one
one
aesthetics
aesthetics approach may be utilized.
utilized. Some
Someofofthe
themost
mostwidely
widelyadopted
adopted elements
elements areare
as
as follows.
follows.
Figure 4. Overview
Figure4. Overview of
of game
game aesthetics.
aesthetics.
3.4.1. Sensation
3.4.1. Sensation
The ‘sensation’ aesthetic refers to the tangible stimuli that a game provides to its
playersThe ‘sensation’
[88]. aesthetic refers
This encompasses to the
factors liketangible stimuli that
visual graphics, a gameelements,
auditory providesand
to itstactile
play-
ers [88]. This
feedback thatencompasses
responds in factors likeAvisual
real time. graphics,
captivating auditory
sensory elements,
layout and tactile
can instantly draw feed-
a
back that responds in real time. A captivating sensory layout can instantly
player in by fostering a comprehensive and enveloping atmosphere and by further pro- draw a player
in by fostering
moting intricate ainteractions
comprehensive and enveloping
and dedication atmosphereintricacies
to the gameplay’s and by further promoting
and educational
intricate interactions and dedication to the gameplay’s intricacies and educational
goals. This element is particularly salient in educational games, especially where hands-on goals.
This element is particularly salient in educational games, especially where
experiences and proactive discovery play pivotal roles, as seen in domains like science hands-on ex-
periences
and and proactive discovery play pivotal roles, as seen in domains like science and
engineering.
engineering.
3.4.2. Fantasy
3.4.2.Game
Fantasy
aesthetics often tap into ‘fantasy’ to craft compelling environments that grab
players’ attention
Game [89]. often
aesthetics This involves
tap intocreating
‘fantasy’imaginative worlds and
to craft compelling characters that
environments attract
that grab
players’
players’ attention,
attention scaffold
[89]. Thiscomplex cognitive
involves creatingprocesses andworlds
imaginative promote deeper
and engagement
characters that at-
and
tractimmersion. Incorporating
players’ attention, scaffoldthese elements
complex enhances
cognitive problem
processes solving, deeper
and promote creativity, and
engage-
critical thinking within the game. When used in education, fantasy can help ground
ment and immersion. Incorporating these elements enhances problem solving, creativity, abstract
ideas, making
and critical learning
thinking more the
within engaging.
game. When used in education, fantasy can help ground
abstract ideas, making learning more engaging.
3.4.3. Narrative
3.4.3.The aesthetic of ‘narrative’ is anchored in the integration of core story elements that
Narrative
encompass plot structures,
The aesthetic character
of ‘narrative’ development,
is anchored in the and evolvingofnarrative
integration trajectories
core story elements [90].
that
An adeptly constructed narrative offers the potential to cultivate emotional resonance
encompass plot structures, character development, and evolving narrative trajectories and
player commitment, thereby inciting continued interaction and anticipation for unfolding
[90]. An adeptly constructed narrative offers the potential to cultivate emotional resonance
events within the game. Within pedagogical frameworks, the narrative serves as a scaffold,
and player commitment, thereby inciting continued interaction and anticipation for un-
contextualizing information and rendering it more resonant and enduring in the learner’s
folding events within the game. Within pedagogical frameworks, the narrative serves as
a scaffold, contextualizing information and rendering it more resonant and enduring in
memory. Additionally, it aids in nurturing empathy and broadened comprehension by

offering players insights into diverse viewpoints and lived experiences.
3.4.4. Audio
The ‘audio’ aesthetic in games encompasses all auditory elements, including music,
sound effects, ambient noise, and voice-overs [91]. These components shape the game’s
soundscape, contributing to the player’s immersion, emotional engagement, and under-
standing of the game mechanics. Sound effects can reinforce feedback, while music sets the
game’s mood and pace. The use of voice acting or narration enhances narrative aspects and
provides additional instructional content. In essence, a well-crafted auditory landscape not
only complements but also elevates the learning experience by making it an integral part of
the game design process.
3.4.5. Challenge
The aesthetics of ‘challenge’ revolve around the integration of tasks, puzzles, and
barriers that players need to navigate to advance within the game [92]. Engaging with these
challenges sharpens players’ problem-solving capabilities, often resulting in a rewarding
sense of accomplishment. Within educational paradigms, well-structured challenges not
only serve as an active learning tool but also provide practical contexts for learners to apply
their acquired knowledge. Moreover, confronting and navigating these challenges cultivate
perseverance, as players frequently face the necessity of employing various strategies and
demonstrating persistence despite setbacks.
3.4.6. Fellowship
The aesthetic of ‘fellowship’ emphasizes the game’s social dimensions, promoting
interactivity, collaborative endeavors, and competition among players [93]. Such dynamics
might include collaborative missions, challenges specifically tailored for groups, or systems
that evaluate and rank players competitively. When these fellowship elements are inte-
grated, they can cultivate a sense of community among participants. This, in turn, enhances
their engagement and deepens their commitment to the gaming milieu. In the educa-
tional context, the social interplay facilitated by fellowship not only fosters essential skills
like teamwork, effective communication, and negotiation but also facilitates peer-to-peer
learning, where students learn from each other and feel part of a learning community.
4. Adoption across Different Educational Levels

Across all educational stages, the overarching aim of gamification remains consistent:
to offer learners a comprehensive learning environment where gamification operates as
a catalyst that bolsters both individual and communal learning experiences. However,
as learners progress through developmental stages, they exhibit varying cognitive skills,
motivations, and interests [94]. Given these variations, the efficacy of gamification may
differ based on learners’ age and cognitive maturity. For optimal outcomes, instructional
designers should strategically align gamification with curriculum objectives, ensuring that
it augments learning rather than acting as a mere supplement. Likewise, teachers, in their
pivotal role, should always consider aligning game mechanics with precise lesson goals,
ensuring that the experience is both natural and unequivocally beneficial to students.
4.1. Preschool Education

At this foundational level, gamified activities should be playful, discovery-driven
experiences, with the aim to bolster cognitive and motor skills like pattern recognition,
sorting, and matching [95]. Beyond cognitive development, these activities can also foster
interpersonal skills, encourage cooperative play and the act of sharing [95]. Pedagogically,
this means crafting an exploratory learning environment with visual/auditory cues and
tactile elements. Tools like interactive storyboards, puzzles, and badges as well as story-
driven adventures, role playing, and themed challenges are essential. Curriculum-wise,
these gamified interventions should seamlessly blend with daily routines to enhance the
teaching of concepts like colors and numbers [95].
4.2. Primary Education

At the primary level, gamified interventions should strike a balance between com-
petition and cooperation, catering to the evolving learning capacities of students [96].
The focus here is to sharpen foundational academic abilities and problem-solving skills.
Symbolic rewards like virtual badges, certificates, dynamic progression bars, and avatar
customization options can serve as powerful motivators [96]. Pedagogically speaking,
it is crucial to intricately weave these gamified components into the curriculum, ensur-
ing that every activity resonates with subject-specific objectives. Beyond mere academic
pursuits, integrating feedback mechanisms within these games can amplify the learning
experience, offering students timely insights into areas warranting further attention and
polishing. Curriculum-wise, these gamified tools should intertwine with core subjects,
enhancing the understanding of topics such as basic arithmetic operations and foundational
grammar rules.
4.3. Secondary Education

At the secondary level, the gamified experience takes on a more sophisticated and
narrative-rich form, resonating with real-world contexts [96]. Emphasis in this level grav-
itates towards honing students’ capacities for critical thinking, strategic planning, and
informed decision making. A notable feature is the increased onus on learner autonomy,
allowing students to chart their unique learning paths. This not only empowers them with
a sense of ownership over their educational journey but also enriches their comprehension
of intricate subjects. Features like branching storylines, immersive challenges, and collabo-
rative team missions become essential tools, paving the way for multifaceted explorations.
Additionally, post-gameplay reflective discussions serve as catalysts, spurring deeper anal-
ysis and fostering a collaborative learning environment where students glean insights from
their experience and that of their peers. Curriculum-wise, gamified elements should be
integrated in a manner that complements subjects from the arts or science, promoting
explorations into significant eras or complex scientific phenomena.
4.4. Tertiary Education

In the tertiary stage, gamification matures, seamlessly merging theoretical insights
with real-world applications [19]. Game scenarios should mirror challenges profession-
als confront in their respective fields, providing students with a simulated platform to
cultivate practical skills and dexterity. While elements such as leaderboards stoke the
competitive flame, they also kindle a sense of achievement and progress. Collabora-
tive aspects, epitomized by team-based tasks, simulations, and scenario-driven assign-
ments enrich peer-based learning. These collective endeavors promote an atmosphere
of shared insights, mutual learning, and collective problem solving. An integral com-
ponent is the post-game debriefing, where educators facilitate discussions, encouraging
students to dissect strategies, share reflections, and jointly fine-tune their problem-solving
approaches. At its core, tertiary gamification experience aims to craft a symbiotic learning
ecosystem, where theoretical tenets and practical challenges converge, amplifying both
individual prowess and collaborative knowledge assimilation. Curriculum-wise, such
gamified interventions should simulate real-world professional challenges, aiding in sub-
jects like business management or engineering design, offering hands-on experience in
simulated environments.
5. Discussion and Prospects

5.1. Advantages
Integrating gamification into the educational landscape can revolutionize traditional
learning paradigms. By tapping into the playful and competitive instincts of learners,
gamified activities can boost their intrinsic motivation and active participation [97]. This,
in turn, enables educators to transform the learning process from a monotonous task to
an intriguing venture. Furthermore, gamified learning scenarios often provide immediate,
constructive feedback, which enables students to grasp intricate concepts, monitor their
progress, and adapt their strategies as needed [98]. Moreover, games inherently offer
players a measure of control over their actions, a characteristic that can be mirrored in the
educational domain [99]. By promoting self-paced learning, interspersed with choices and
challenges, gamification cultivates student autonomy, forming a cornerstone for personal
growth. Additionally, numerous games either require or encourage cooperative game-
play, thus prompting individuals to collaborate, exchange ideas, and jointly overcome
challenges [100]. The refinement of such vital life skills (e.g., teamwork, communication,
collaborative problem solving) can have profound implications for learners’ personal and
professional growth. Lastly, the very act of engaging with digital games necessitates a de-
gree of technological interaction. As such, it amplifies digital literacy, which is an essential
skill in our increasingly digital world [99].
5.2. Disadvantages
Despite the potential advantages, educators need to remain aware of possible pitfalls.
Gamification risks to over-emphasize rewards, which might inadvertently erode intrinsic
motivation [101]. While the prospect of rewards can facilitate engagement, it is vital for
educators to strike a balance between an innate desire to learn and external incentives.
Furthermore, if gamified elements are not carefully integrated, there is a risk that games
can detract from the core learning objectives [102]. Finally, the issue of equitable access to
technology emerges as a significant concern [103]. Every student should have access to the
necessary technological resources. Students from low-income societal or geographically
marginalized backgrounds could find themselves in a disadvantageous position, which
could potentially deepen the existing educational divides even more.
5.3. Implementation
Effective implementation hinges on multiple factors. Firstly, ethical considerations are
paramount. Throughout the design phase, gamification designers should remain acutely
conscious of ethical guidelines, including justifying their choices and following the broader
societal views on gamification ethics [104]. Moreover, resource implications should not be
overlooked. Gamification demands a spectrum of resources, including not only monetary
outlays for technology procurement and upkeep but also the allocation of time for educator
training and content creation [105]. Technological limitations must also be considered.
Addressing hardware and software competencies, ensuring stable internet connectivity,
and catering to the varying digital proficiency levels of users are pivotal for a seamless
gamified learning experience [106]. Lastly, as we delve deeper into the digital realm, the
protection of student data becomes increasingly paramount [107]. Ensuring robust data
security and upholding student privacy warrants attention during both the crafting and
execution of gamified endeavor.
Pedagogically, gamification should not be implemented in isolation but rather inte-
grated thoughtfully into the broader educational framework. The primary goal of gamifica-
tion in education is to enhance learning by incorporating elements of enjoyment. However,
enjoyment should not overshadow the educational intent. Therefore, an effective gamified
activity should seamlessly integrate entertainment with the learning objectives in order
to provide an experience that is both engaging and instructive [108]. Beyond this, teacher
training emerges as a linchpin. For gamification to truly take root, educators must undergo
holistic training, equipping themselves to steer the technological helm, pivot as dynamics
evolve, and troubleshoot emerging challenges.
5.4. Challenges
The transformative potential of gamification in education is not without its com-
plexities, particularly in the realms of player engagement and technical infrastructure.
These challenges are critical to comprehending the full scope of gamification’s impact
and limitations.
Player engagement is a multifaceted construct that goes beyond mere participation,
encompassing emotional, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions [109]. Designing gamifi-
cation elements that resonate with a diverse learner profile is a significant challenge. A
one-size-fits-all approach may lead to disengagement among learners who do not find the
gamified elements motivating [110]. Moreover, sustaining engagement over time presents
another hurdle. While initial engagement may be high, the novelty effect can wear off, lead-
ing to decreased motivation [97]. Dynamic gamification techniques that adapt to learners’
progress and preferences are essential to sustaining engagement [111].
On the technical side, implementing gamification at scale demands a robust and secure
infrastructure. This involves not only software development but also integration with
existing educational technologies [112]. A multidisciplinary approach, involving expertise
in programming, instructional design, and educational psychology, is often required. The
infrastructure must also be capable of collecting and analyzing large volumes of data
for real-time feedback and dynamic adaptation [113]. This can be resource-intensive and
necessitates robust backend architecture and data analytics capabilities. Equitable access to
technology, particularly for learners from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds,
is another concern that must be addressed [114].
Given these challenges, future research should focus on developing adaptive gami-
fication frameworks sensitive to individual differences and contextual factors. Likewise,
empirical studies are needed to understand the long-term effects of gamification on engage-
ment and learning outcomes. Finally, research could explore cost-effective and scalable
solutions for implementing gamification in diverse educational settings.
5.5. Mixed Reality, Artificial Intelligence, and the Metaverse

In the realm of education and training, the rise of advanced computer graphics and
game engine software, and the development of embodied, immersive interfaces have
allowed practitioners to explore complex playful and gameful approaches to system archi-
tecture and instructional design towards interventional sophistication. Technologies such
as AR and VR have been utilized to craft gamified simulations, role-plays, and games with
serious purposes [115]. Serious games such as escape rooms can be designed in AR and VR
to provide immersive learning experiences [116] both in science and humanities [8,117].
The advent of large language models, such as GPT-3, has ushered in a new era of
personalized and dynamic gamification in language education. These AI-driven models
enable the creation of adaptive quizzes, interactive conversations, and real-time feedback
mechanisms, thereby enriching the gamification landscape [118]. The integration of such
models into educational platforms can significantly enhance learner engagement and
educational outcomes, aligning well with the future research agenda of shifting from
individualistic incentives to communal motivation.
The Metaverse, as a seamless spatial computing bridge between physicality and
virtuality, can provide a new frontier for meaningful integration of gamification practices in
several fields and sectors [119]. As technology advances, it is expected that this innovative
solution will be mediated by smart wearable devices, headsets, and even brain–computer
interfaces with multiple sensors. These devices can provide additional user inputs that
can be quantified and shared. The utilization of multi-user, social virtual worlds in the
Metaverse is aligned with the proposed future gamification research agenda encompassing
individualistic incentives towards communal motivation and collaborative engagement [10].
At the same time, the enhanced possibility to harvest users’ emotions and reactions raises
serious ethical questions around data privacy that need to be addressed to ensure user
approval and mass adoption [120].
6. Conclusions
The successful adoption and advancement of gamification in educational settings
hinge significantly on the perspectives of its primary end-users. Understanding these
viewpoints is not only crucial for the effective design and implementation of gamification
strategies but also for their widespread acceptance and sustainability.
From the learners’ perspective, the allure of gamification often lies in its capacity to
make learning more engaging. However, attitudes can vary based on individual experiences
and educational goals. Some may find gamified elements motivating, while others may see
them as distractions.
Conversely, educators’ willingness to integrate gamification is influenced by their
perceptions of its efficacy, ease of use, and the resources required for implementation. While
some view it as a potent tool for enhancing student engagement, others may hesitate due
to concerns about resource allocation and effectiveness.
To reconcile these varying perspectives, a co-design approach involving both learners
and educators can be invaluable. Such an approach should include feedback loops and
iterative design processes to fine-tune the gamification elements. This would ensure that the
strategies employed are not only pedagogically sound but also resonate with the end-users’
needs and preferences.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.C. and S.M.; methodology, A.C. and S.M.; investigation,
A.C. and S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C. and S.M.; writing—review and editing, A.C.
and S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Panksepp, J. Toward a general psychobiological theory of emotions. Behav. Brain Sci. 1982, 5, 407–422. [CrossRef]
2. Huizinga, J.; Huizinga, J. Homo ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture, 30th print ed.; The Beacon Press: Boston, MA, USA,
2009; ISBN 978-0-8070-4681-4.
3. Deterding, S. The Ambiguity of Games: Histories and Discourses of a Gameful World. In The Gameful World; Walz, S.P., Deterding,
S., Eds.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 23–64. ISBN 978-0-262-32571-4.
4. Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. In
Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, Tampere,
Finland, 28–30 September 2011; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 9–15.
5. De Sousa Borges, S.; Durelli, V.H.S.; Reis, H.M.; Isotani, S. A systematic mapping on gamification applied to education. In
Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, 24–28 March 2014;
ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 216–222.
6. Mystakidis, S. Combat Tanking in Education: The TANC Model for Playful Distance Learning in Social Virtual Reality. Int. J.
Gaming Comput. Mediat. Simul. 2022, 13, 28–47. [CrossRef]
7. De Freitas, S.; Liarokapis, F. Serious Games: A New Paradigm for Education? In Serious Games and Edutainment Applications; Ma,
M., Oikonomou, A., Jain, L.C., Eds.; Springer: London, UK, 2011; pp. 9–23. ISBN 978-1-4471-2160-2.
8. Christopoulos, A.; Mystakidis, S.; Cachafeiro, E.; Laakso, M.-J. Escaping the cell: Virtual reality escape rooms in biology education.
Behav. Inf. Technol. 2023, 42, 1434–1451. [CrossRef]
9. Veldkamp, A.; Van De Grint, L.; Knippels, M.-C.P.J.; Van Joolingen, W.R. Escape education: A systematic review on escape rooms
in education. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 31, 100364. [CrossRef]
10. Koivisto, J.; Hamari, J. The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019,
45, 191–210. [CrossRef]
11. Serice, L. Prisms of Neuroscience: Frameworks for Thinking About Educational Gamification. AI Comput. Sci. Robot. Technol.
2023, 2. [CrossRef]
12. Smiderle, R.; Rigo, S.J.; Marques, L.B.; Peçanha de Miranda Coelho, J.A.; Jaques, P.A. The impact of gamification on students’
learning, engagement and behavior based on their personality traits. Smart Learn. Environ. 2020, 7, 3. [CrossRef]
13. Christopoulos, A.; Conrad, M.; Shukla, M. Increasing student engagement through virtual interactions: How? Virtual Real. 2018,
22, 353–369. [CrossRef]
14. De Croon, R.; Geuens, J.; Verbert, K.; Vanden Abeele, V. A Systematic Review of the Effect of Gamification on Adherence Across
Disciplines. In HCI in Games: Experience Design and Game Mechanics; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Fang, X., Ed.; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 12789, pp. 168–184. ISBN 978-3-030-77276-5.
15. Maltseva, N.N.; Penkov, V.E. Point-Based Grading System: Advantages and Disadvantages. Vysshee Obraz. V Ross. High. Educ.
Russ. 2021, 30, 139–145. [CrossRef]
16. Yıldırım, İ.; Şen, S. The effects of gamification on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. Interact. Learn. Environ.
2021, 29, 1301–1318. [CrossRef]
17. Drace, K. Gamification of the Laboratory Experience to Encourage Student Engagement. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 2013, 14, 273–274.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Dahalan, F.; Alias, N.; Shaharom, M.S.N. Gamification and Game Based Learning for Vocational Education and Training: A
Systematic Literature Review. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023, 1–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Subhash, S.; Cudney, E.A. Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Comput. Hum. Behav.
2018, 87, 192–206. [CrossRef]
20. Mora, A.; Riera, D.; González, C.; Arnedo-Moreno, J. Gamification: A systematic review of design frameworks. J. Comput. High.
Educ. 2017, 29, 516–548. [CrossRef]
21. Hunicke, R.; Leblanc, M.; Zubek, R. MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. In Proceedings of the
Challenges in Game AI Workshop, San Jose, CA, USA, 25–29 July 2004; Volume 4, pp. 1–5.
22. Fogg, B. A behavior model for persuasive design. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology,
Claremont, CA, USA, 26–29 April 2009; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 1–7.
23. Pintrich, P.R.; Brown, D.R.; Weinstein, C.E. (Eds.) Student Motivation, Cognition, and Learning: Essays in Honor of Wilbert J. Mckeachie,
1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-1-136-47959-5.
24. Keller, J.M. The Arcs Model of Motivational Design. In Motivational Design for Learning and Performance; Springer: Boston, MA,
USA, 2010; pp. 43–74. ISBN 978-1-4419-1249-7.
25. Economou, D.; Doumanis, I.; Pedersen, F.; Kathrani, P.; Mentzelopoulos, M.; Bouki, V. Evaluation of a dynamic role-playing
platform for simulations based on Octalysis gamification framework. In Proceedings of the Ambient Intelligence and Smart
Environments; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 19.
26. Nicholson, S. A RECIPE for Meaningful Gamification. In Gamification in Education and Business; Reiners, T., Wood, L.C., Eds.;
Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 1–20. ISBN 978-3-319-10207-8.
27. Werbach, K.; Hunter, D. For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business; Wharton Digital Press: Philadelphia, PA,
USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-61363-023-5.
28. Arnab, S.; Lim, T.; Carvalho, M.B.; Bellotti, F.; De Freitas, S.; Louchart, S.; Suttie, N.; Berta, R.; De Gloria, A. Mapping learning
and game mechanics for serious games analysis: Mapping learning and game mechanics. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2015, 46, 391–411.
[CrossRef]
29. Habgood, M.P.J.; Ainsworth, S.E. Motivating Children to Learn Effectively: Exploring the Value of Intrinsic Integration in
Educational Games. J. Learn. Sci. 2011, 20, 169–206. [CrossRef]
30. Limantara, N.; Meyliana, N.; Gaol, F.L.; Prabowo, H. Designing Gamified Learning Management Systems for Higher Education.
Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2023, 13, 25–32. [CrossRef]
31. Bartle, R. Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit muds. J. MUD Res. 1996, 1, 19.
32. Kapp, K.M. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education; Pfeiffer: San
Francisco, CA, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-118-09634-5.
33. Marczewski, A. Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Gamification, Game Thinking & Motivational Design; Gamified: Addlestone, UK,
2015; ISBN 978-1-5147-4566-3.
34. Dawley, L.; Dede, C. Situated Learning in Virtual Worlds and Immersive Simulations. In Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology; Spector, J.M., Merrill, M.D., Elen, J., Bishop, M.J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014;
pp. 723–734. ISBN 978-1-4614-3184-8.
35. Petrakou, A. Interacting through avatars: Virtual worlds as a context for online education. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 1020–1027.
[CrossRef]
36. Falloon, G. Using avatars and virtual environments in learning: What do they have to offer?: Avatars and virtual environments in
learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2010, 41, 108–122. [CrossRef]
37. Cammarota, J. Blindsided by the Avatar: White Saviors and Allies Out of Hollywood and in Education. Rev. Educ. Pedagog. Cult.
Stud. 2011, 33, 242–259. [CrossRef]
38. Konstantinidis, E.I.; Hitoglou-Antoniadou, M.; Luneski, A.; Bamidis, P.D.; Nikolaidou, M.M. Using affective avatars and rich
multimedia content for education of children with autism. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on PErvasive
Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, Corfu, Greece, 9–13 June 2009; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 1–6.
39. Liao, C.L. Avatars, Second Life, and New Media Art: The Challenge for Contemporary Art Education. Art Educ. 2008, 61, 87–91.
[CrossRef]
40. Rodrigues, L.F.; Oliveira, A.; Rodrigues, H. Main gamification concepts: A systematic mapping study. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01993.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Attali, Y.; Arieli-Attali, M. Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test performance? Comput. Educ. 2015, 83, 57–63.
[CrossRef]
42. Oliveira, W.; Hamari, J.; Shi, L.; Toda, A.M.; Rodrigues, L.; Palomino, P.T.; Isotani, S. Tailored gamification in education: A
literature review and future agenda. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023, 28, 373–406. [CrossRef]
43. Xu, J.; Lio, A.; Dhaliwal, H.; Andrei, S.; Balakrishnan, S.; Nagani, U.; Samadder, S. Psychological interventions of virtual
gamification within academic intrinsic motivation: A systematic review. J. Affect. Disord. 2021, 293, 444–465. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Sukhov, A. Gamification of the Middle Ages: Educational Dimension of User Modifications of “Total War: Medieval II”. In
Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning, Brighton, UK, 23–24 September 2021; pp. 700–708.
45. Jang, J.; Park, J.J.Y.; Yi, M.Y. Gamification of Online Learning. In Artificial Intelligence in Education; Lecture Notes in Computer
Science; Conati, C., Heffernan, N., Mitrovic, A., Verdejo, M.F., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015;
Volume 9112, pp. 646–649. ISBN 978-3-319-19772-2.
46. Gunter, G.A.; Kenny, R.F.; Vick, E.H. Taking educational games seriously: Using the RETAIN model to design endogenous fantasy
into standalone educational games. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2008, 56, 511–537. [CrossRef]
47. Dicheva, D.; Dichev, C.; Agre, G.; Angelova, G. Gamification in Education: A Systematic Mapping Study. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2015,
18, 75–88.
48. Bai, S.; Hew, K.F.; Huang, B. Does gamification improve student learning outcome? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis
of qualitative data in educational contexts. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 30, 100322. [CrossRef]
49. Haaranen, L.; Ihantola, P.; Hakulinen, L.; Korhonen, A. How (not) to introduce badges to online exercises. In Proceedings of the
45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Atlanta, GA, USA, 5–8 March 2014; ACM: New York, NY,
USA, 2014; pp. 33–38.
50. Ahn, J.; Pellicone, A.; Butler, B.S. Open badges for education: What are the implications at the intersection of open systems and
badging? Res. Learn. Technol. 2014, 22. [CrossRef]
51. Shields, R.; Chugh, R. Digital badges—Rewards for learning? Educ. Inf. Technol. 2017, 22, 1817–1824. [CrossRef]
52. Botra, A.; Rerselman, M.; Ford, M. Gamification beyond badges. In Proceedings of the 2014 IST-Africa Conference Proceedings,
Le Meridien Ile Maurice, Pointe Aux Piments, Mauritius, 7–9 May 2014; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 1–10.
53. Snelson, C. Quest-Based Learning: A Scoping Review of the Research Literature. TechTrends 2022, 66, 287–297. [CrossRef]
54. Kingsley, T.L.; Grabner-Hagen, M.M. Gamification: Questing to Integrate Content Knowledge, Literacy, and 21st-Century
Learning. J. Adolesc. Adult Lit. 2015, 59, 51–61. [CrossRef]
55. Jovanović, A.; Milosavljević, A. VoRtex Metaverse Platform for Gamified Collaborative Learning. Electronics 2022, 11, 317.
[CrossRef]
56. Curcio, I.D.D.; Dipace, A.; Norlund, A. Virtual realities and education. Res. Educ. Media 2016, 8, 60–68. [CrossRef]
57. Domínguez, A.; Saenz-de-Navarrete, J.; de-Marcos, L.; Fernández-Sanz, L.; Pagés, C.; Martínez-Herráiz, J.-J. Gamifying learning
experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Comput. Educ. 2013, 63, 380–392. [CrossRef]
58. Buckley, P.; Doyle, E. Gamification and student motivation. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2016, 24, 1162–1175. [CrossRef]
59. Nah, F.F.-H.; Zeng, Q.; Telaprolu, V.R.; Ayyappa, A.P.; Eschenbrenner, B. Gamification of Education: A Review of Literature. In
HCI in Business; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Nah, F.F.-H., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland,
2014; Volume 8527, pp. 401–409. ISBN 978-3-319-07292-0.
60. O’Donovan, S.; Gain, J.; Marais, P. 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, East London, South Africa, 7–9
October 2019; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 242–251.
61. Hanus, M.D.; Fox, J. Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social
comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Comput. Educ. 2015, 80, 152–161. [CrossRef]
62. 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. 2017, 14, 9. [CrossRef]
63. Landers, R.N.; Landers, A.K. An Empirical Test of the Theory of Gamified Learning: The Effect of Leaderboards on Time-on-Task
and Academic Performance. Simul. Gaming 2014, 45, 769–785. [CrossRef]
64. Warpefelt, H.; Verhagen, H. A model of non-player character believability. J. Gaming Virtual Worlds 2017, 9, 39–53. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
65. Bopp, J.A.; Müller, L.J.; Aeschbach, L.F.; Opwis, K.; Mekler, E.D. Exploring Emotional Attachment to Game Characters. In
Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Barcelona, Spain, 22–25 October 2019; ACM:
New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 313–324.
66. Liu, T.; Lai, Z. From non-player characters to othered participants: Chinese women’s gaming experience in the ‘free’ digital
market. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2022, 25, 376–394. [CrossRef]
67. Yunanto, A.A.; Herumurti, D.; Rochimah, S.; Kuswardayan, I. English Education Game using Non-Player Character Based on
Natural Language Processing. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 161, 502–508. [CrossRef]
68. Callaghan, M.; Savin-Baden, M.; McShane, N.; Eguiluz, A.G. Mapping Learning and Game Mechanics for Serious Games Analysis
in Engineering Education. IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. 2017, 5, 77–83. [CrossRef]
69. Rodrigues, A.L.P.D.; Cerdeira, L.; Machado-Taylor, M.L.; Alves, H. The Importance of Developing Students’ Technological
Skills in Higher Education for Their Future Quality of Life. In Proceedings of the 15th International Technology, Education and
Development Conference, Online Conference, 8–9 March 2021; pp. 3945–3949.
70. Proulx, J.-N.; Romero, M.; Arnab, S. Learning Mechanics and Game Mechanics Under the Perspective of Self-Determination
Theory to Foster Motivation in Digital Game Based Learning. Simul. Gaming 2017, 48, 81–97. [CrossRef]
71. Dong, T.; Yang, G. Towards a pattern language for interactive coding tutorials. In Proceedings of the Conference Companion of the 4th
International Conference on Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming; ACM: Porto, Portugal, 2020; pp. 102–105.
72. Akdeniz, C. Instructional Strategies. In Instructional Process and Concepts in Theory and Practice; Akdeniz, C., Ed.; Springer:
Singapore, 2016; pp. 57–105. ISBN 978-981-10-2518-1.
73. Benwell, B.; Stokoe, E.H. Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: Shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Stud.
2002, 4, 429–453. [CrossRef]
74. Velavan, A.; Saravanan, V.; Bazroy, J.; Singh, Z. Assessment of innovations in tutorial method of teaching among medical students.
Int. J. Res. Med. Sci. 2017, 5, 4155. [CrossRef]
75. Hussain, M.A. Effectiveness of Demonstration Method to Teach the Abstract Concepts to the Children Between the Age of Six to
Ten. an Experimental Research. Int. J. Educ. IJE 2020, 8, 23–32. [CrossRef]
76. Perkins, K.; Adams, W.; Dubson, M.; Finkelstein, N.; Reid, S.; Wieman, C.; LeMaster, R. PhET: Interactive Simulations for Teaching
and Learning Physics. Phys. Teach. 2006, 44, 18–23. [CrossRef]
77. Star, J.R.; Strickland, S.K. Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. J. Math.
Teach. Educ. 2008, 11, 107–125. [CrossRef]
78. Akers, R.L.; Jennings, W.G. Social Learning Theory. In The Handbook of Criminological Theory; Piquero, A.R., Ed.; John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 230–240. ISBN 978-1-118-51244-9.
79. López-Arcos, J.R.; Gutiérrez, F.L.; Padilla-Zea, N.; Medina, N.M.; Paderewski, P. Continuous Assessment in Educational Video
Games: A Roleplaying approach. In Proceedings of the XV International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, Puerto de
la Cruz Tenerife, Spain, 10–12 September 2014; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1–8.
80. Abbasi, S.; Kazi, H. Stealth assessment in serious games to improve OO learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2019
International Conference on Advances in the Emerging Computing Technologies (AECT), Al Madinah Al Munawwarah, Saudi
Arabia, 10 February 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 1–5.
81. Azcona, D.; Hsiao, I.-H.; Smeaton, A.F. Detecting students-at-risk in computer programming classes with learning analytics from
students’ digital footprints. User Model. User Adapt. Interact. 2019, 29, 759–788. [CrossRef]
82. Chen, Y.-C.; Hou, H.-T.; Wu, C.-H. Design and Development of a Scaffolding-Based Mindtool for Gamified Learning Classrooms.
J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2023, 61, 3–29. [CrossRef]
83. Dichev, C.; Dicheva, D.; Irwin, K. Gamifying learning for learners. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020, 17, 54. [CrossRef]
84. Dunne, M.; Nisbet, G.; Penman, M.; McAllister, L. Facilitating the development and maintenance of reflection in speech pathology
students. Health Educ. Pract. J. Res. Prof. Learn. 2019, 2, 13579. [CrossRef]
85. Ibrahim, R.; Rahim, N.Z.A.; Ten, D.W.H.; Yusoff, R.C.; Maarop, N.; Yaacob, S. Student’s Opinions on Online Educational Games
for Learning Programming Introductory. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2018, 9. [CrossRef]
86. Funny, R.A.; Ghofur, M.A.; Oktiningrum, W.; Nuraini, N.L.S. Reflective Thinking Skills of Engineering Students in Learning
Statistics. J. Math. Educ. 2019, 10, 445–458. [CrossRef]
87. Haupt, S.; Wortmann, K. Debating Post-Critical Pedagogy: A Conversation in Letters: Reply. Educ. J. Res. Debate 2020, 3.
[CrossRef]
88. Cardoso Garone, P.M.; Nesteriuk, S.; Belluzzo De Campos, G. Sensory Design in Games: Beyond Visual-Based Experiences. In
Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management. Human Communication, Organization and
Work; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Duffy, V.G., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume
12199, pp. 322–333. ISBN 978-3-030-49906-8.
89. Zuo, T.; Feijs, L.; Van Der Spek, E.D.; Hu, J. A Classification of Fantasy in Serious Games. In Proceedings of the Extended
Abstracts of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts, Barcelona, Spain,
22–25 October 2019; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 821–828.
90. Alexiou, A.; Schippers, M.C.; Oshri, I.; Angelopoulos, S. Narrative and aesthetics as antecedents of perceived learning in serious
games. Inf. Technol. People 2022, 35, 142–161. [CrossRef]
91. Vorderer, P.; Bryant, J. Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences; Taylor and Francis: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012;
ISBN 978-0-203-87370-0.
92. Aponte, M.-V.; Levieux, G.; Natkin, S. Measuring the level of difficulty in single player video games. Entertain. Comput. 2011, 2,
205–213. [CrossRef]
93. Ralph, P.; Monu, K. Toward a Unified Theory of Digital Games. Comput. Games J. 2015, 4, 81–100. [CrossRef]
94. Sheffler, P.; Rodriguez, T.M.; Cheung, C.S.; Wu, R. Cognitive and metacognitive, motivational, and resource considerations for
learning new skills across the lifespan. WIREs Cogn. Sci. 2022, 13, e1585. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
95. Lamrani, R.; Abdelwahed, E. Game-based learning and gamification to improve skills in early years education. Comput. Sci. Inf.
Syst. 2020, 17, 339–356. [CrossRef]
96. Vrcelj, A.; Hoić-Božić, N.; Holenko Dlab, M. Use of Gamification in Primary and Secondary Education: A Systematic Literature
Review. Int. J. Educ. Methodol. 2022, 9, 13–27. [CrossRef]
97. Tsay, C.H.; Kofinas, A.K.; Trivedi, S.K.; Yang, Y. Overcoming the novelty effect in online gamified learning systems: An empirical
evaluation of student engagement and performance. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2020, 36, 128–146. [CrossRef]
98. Sailer, M.; Sailer, M. Gamification of in-class activities in flipped classroom lectures. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 75–90. [CrossRef]
99. Gee, J.P. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Comput. Entertain. 2003, 1, 20. [CrossRef]
100. Steinkuehler, C.A.; Williams, D. Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. J. Comput.-Mediat.
Commun. 2006, 11, 885–909. [CrossRef]
101. Sweetser, P.; Aitchison, M. Do Game Bots Dream of Electric Rewards?: The universality of intrinsic motivation. In Proceedings of
the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, Bugibba, Malta, 15–18 September 2020; ACM: New York, NY,
USA, 2020; pp. 1–7.
102. Sailer, M.; Homner, L. The Gamification of Learning: A Meta-analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2020, 32, 77–112. [CrossRef]
103. Dowding, M.R. Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Can. J. Commun. 2004, 29, 117–118. [CrossRef]
104. Sheetal; Tyagi, R.; Singh, G. Gamification and customer experience in online retail: A qualitative study focusing on ethical
perspective. Asian J. Bus. Ethics 2023, 12, 49–69. [CrossRef]
105. Liu, B.; Wang, J. Demon or angel: An exploration of gamification in management. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 2019, 11, 317–343.
[CrossRef]
106. Stefan, I.A.; Gheorghe, A.F.; Stefan, A.; Piki, A.; Tsalapata, H.; Heidmann, O. Constructing Seamless Learning Through Game-
Based Learning Experiences. Int. J. Mob. Blended Learn. 2022, 14, 1–12. [CrossRef]
107. Jones, K.M.L. Learning analytics and higher education: A proposed model for establishing informed consent mechanisms to
promote student privacy and autonomy. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2019, 16, 24. [CrossRef]
108. Alsawaier, R.S. The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 2018, 35, 56–79. [CrossRef]
109. Wong, Z.Y.; Liem, G.A.D. Student Engagement: Current State of the Construct, Conceptual Refinement, and Future Research
Directions. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2022, 34, 107–138. [CrossRef]
110. Christopoulos, A.; Sprangers, P. Integration of educational technology during the Covid-19 pandemic: An analysis of teacher and
student receptions. Cogent Educ. 2021, 8, 1964690. [CrossRef]
111. Khaleel, F.L.; Noraidah, S.; Tengku, S.M.T.W.; Amirah, I. The Architecture of Dynamic Gamification Elements Based Learning
Content. J. Converg. Inf. Technol. 2016, 11, 164–177.
112. Kopcha, T.J.; Ding, L.; Neumann, K.L.; Choi, I. Teaching Technology Integration to K-12 Educators: A ‘Gamified’ Approach.
TechTrends 2016, 60, 62–69. [CrossRef]
113. Bennani, S.; Maalel, A.; Ben Ghezala, H. Adaptive gamification in E-learning: A literature review and future challenges. Comput.
Appl. Eng. Educ. 2022, 30, 628–642. [CrossRef]
114. Muijs, D.; Harris, A.; Chapman, C.; Stoll, L.; Russ, J. Improving Schools in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Areas? A Review of
Research Evidence. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 2004, 15, 149–175. [CrossRef]
115. Pinto, R.D.; Peixoto, B.; Melo, M.; Cabral, L.; Bessa, M. Foreign Language Learning Gamification Using Virtual Reality—A
Systematic Review of Empirical Research. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 222. [CrossRef]
116. Mystakidis, S.; Lympouridis, V. Immersive Learning. Encyclopedia 2023, 3, 396–405. [CrossRef]
117. Mystakidis, S.; Besharat, J.; Papantzikos, G.; Christopoulos, A.; Stylios, C.; Agorgianitis, S.; Tselentis, D. Design, Development,
and Evaluation of a Virtual Reality Serious Game for School Fire Preparedness Training. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 281. [CrossRef]
118. Yeşilçınar, S. Personalized Learning Through Gamification: A ChatGPT Approach to English Language Learning. In Advances
in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design; Kartal, G., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 44–64. ISBN
978-1-66849-893-4.
119. Park, S.-M.; Kim, Y.-G. A Metaverse: Taxonomy, Components, Applications, and Open Challenges. IEEE Access 2022, 10,
4209–4251. [CrossRef]
120. Slater, M.; Gonzalez-Liencres, C.; Haggard, P.; Vinkers, C.; Gregory-Clarke, R.; Jelley, S.; Watson, Z.; Breen, G.; Schwarz, R.;
Steptoe, W.; et al. The Ethics of Realism in Virtual and Augmented Reality. Front. Virtual Real. 2020, 1, 1. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
View publication stats

Encyclopedia Gamification Education2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Encyclopedia Gamification Education2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Encyclopedia Gamification Education2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in Encyclopedia · October 2023

Athanasios Christopoulos Stylianos Mystakidis

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 Department of Informatics and Telecommunications, University of Ioannina, 47100 Arta, Greece

Encyclopedia 2023, 3, 1223–1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3040089 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/encyclopedia

Table 1. Overview of gamification design frameworks.

Gamification Design Essential Structural

In the context of games, the mechanics–dynamics–aesthetics (MDA) framework has

Figure 1. Overview of application techniques.

3.1.5. Builder (New)

Encyclopedia 2023, 3 1228

3.2. Game Mechanics

3.2.9. Non-Player Characters

3.3. Learning Mechanics

3.4. Game Aesthetics

memory. Additionally, it aids in nurturing empathy and broadened comprehension by

4. Adoption across Different Educational Levels

4.1. Preschool Education

4.2. Primary Education

4.3. Secondary Education

4.4. Tertiary Education

5. Discussion and Prospects

5.5. Mixed Reality, Artificial Intelligence, and the Metaverse

View publication stats

You might also like