Article
Journal of Educational Technology
Systems
The Shift to 0(0) 1–25
! The Author(s) 2020
Gamification in Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Education: A Review DOI: 10.1177/0047239520917629
journals.sagepub.com/home/ets
on Dominant Issues
Kingsley Ofosu-Ampong
Abstract
This article examines gamification literature on education since 2011. Using highlighted
themes from Kirriemuir and McFarlane’s review on games and education as a starting
point, the study identified 32 published papers. Furthermore, the study evaluated and
identified previous conceptual and methodological approaches for evaluating gamifica-
tion in education research. Using the identifying themes, the study discusses the devel-
opment and use of gamification in education (Theme I), the application of gamification
in education (Theme II), and the impact of gamification in education (Theme III) and
propose that there is increased gamification and game elements research activities
bridging the idea of gamified information systems in education and offering interesting
opportunities for future research. The study concludes with future research directions
for gamification in education.
Keywords
gamification, game elements, literature review, education, impact, motivation
The rapid rate of gamification adoption and the use of game elements in edu-
cation have numerous effects on learner outcomes and engagement.
Gamification is considered as the application of game design elements in a
nongame context, purposely to promote desired behaviors or solving problems
University of Ghana Business School, Legon, Accra, Ghana
Corresponding Author:
Kingsley Ofosu-Ampong, University of Ghana Business School, P.O. Box LG 78, Legon, Accra, Ghana.
Email: kingofosu11@gmail.com
2 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
(Zichermann & Cunningham, 2014). The concept of gamification has encour-
aged an insightful number of studies in trying to understand its application in
education and all spheres of life. This article reviews the current state and direc-
tion of gamification in education. Reviews are essential to the growth and learn-
ing of gamification, especially in advancing our knowledge, developing theories,
and uncovering new areas of research (Webster & Watson, 2002). Recently,
more studies have sought to integrate game design elements into education as
well as identifying the consequences and antecedents of technology-enhanced
learning and game-based learning.
Kirriemuir and McFarlane (2004) conducted one of the conceptual reviews in
educational communities on the use of digital games within educational environ-
ments. Their review on games conceptualization and technology-enhanced
learning identified several dominant areas or domains to approach games for
education. In reference to this article, their review highlights three dominant
themes on games for education research, namely, the development and use of
game elements in education (Theme I), application of game elements in educa-
tion (Theme II), and the impact of game elements in education (Theme III).
Several games for education and game-based learning research have been con-
ducted since their last review in 2004. Thus, in recent years, there has been the
introduction of game design elements to augment educational games research
(Deterding et al., 2011), which has altered the competitive education environ-
ment in enhancing learners experience. With the proliferation of research on
gamification in education, the themes and how effective game elements are in
engaging learners have changed, and with the change comes changes in gamifi-
cation in education. Consequently, as game design elements change in educa-
tion, should the way we approach and research gamification change? Hence, the
guiding question in this review is how has learning been performed in the devel-
opment, application, and impact of gamification in education?
Furthermore, there are still open questions as to whether game design ele-
ments are suitable to all spheres of human activities and whether their use in
education is always desirable. To this end, more research questions are yet to be
addressed by human–computer interaction (HCI) researchers in gamification
research. Questions such as are there domains or fields of study that need not
apply gamification? What techniques in gamification are appropriate to apply or
most effective? Aside from the user’s intention, how does gamification affect the
user’s psychological needs perspective?
In this article, an assessing review of gamification literature is conducted from
2011 to 2018 using highlighted themes and search criteria similar to Kirriemuir
and McFarlane (2004). Thirty-two published papers were identified in this
domain, which includes four review papers indicating three significant
themes in gamification research in education. The review begins by defining
gamification and the methodology for the literature review. After the classifica-
tion of themes according to the articles, the review focus on discussing the
Ofosu-Ampong 3
dominant issues such as conceptual and methodological approaches to gain
insight into whether the study of gamification in education has progressed
(positive, negative, or mixed results) in the gamified learning environments.
Finally, the study concludes with the limitation and future research direction
of gamification research.
Framing Gamification Research
In the workplace and schools, there is a history of institutions leveraging games
and competitions in their activities. With innovations in digital platforms and
adding game elements, the concept of gamification has sprung as a new field of
study. Despite criticism of the word and its phenomenon, gamification has stuck
(Werbach, 2014). Appropriately, gamification is to revolutionize education and
businesses in motivating and engaging users to the desired outcome. By using
adoption technique processes and harnessing educational technologies, gamifi-
cation has witnessed significant growth. Start-ups whose development is associ-
ated with gamifying their activities (e.g., codecademy) have also witnessed
progress. Notwithstanding, critics argue that gamification is exploitative, and
the question of the uniqueness and value of gamification remains still.
The interest of the study is to understand gamification research in education.
Since there is no agreed definition for the term gamification, the long-established
and cited definition used is “the use of game design in a nongame context”
(Deterding et al., 2011, p. 5).The generalization of what constitutes game ele-
ments are not known to gamification, making gamification research problematic
as conceded by Deterding et al. Some scholars in appreciating the value of
gamification view it as a process of making activities more game-like. This def-
inition is appropriate for incorporating both practitioners and academic view-
points and bridge the persuasive design to gamified environments (Werbach,
2014).
Furthermore, gamification foster problem solving and promote desired
behaviors by applying game principles and design elements (Zichermann &
Cunningham, 2011). Game components such as leaderboards, badges, points
systems and levels that translate inputs to outputs are game mechanics (Hunicke
et al., 2004). Similarly, the game elements (achievements, competition, rewards,
and self-expression) that regulate interactions among players with game
mechanics are referred to as game dynamics. The various definitions which
highlight the use of game design elements are categorized in Table 1 and con-
ceptualized to identify gamification as either a design element (Deterding et al.,
2011; Werbach & Hunter, 2012; Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011; Zichermann
& Linder, 2013), process technique (Fitz-Walter, 2015; Kim, 2011; Werbach,
2014), or as a service package (Huotari & Hamari, 2012). To this end, Vesa and
Harviainen (2018) is of the view that “gamification is simply a ploy in search of
4 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
Table 1. Some Definitions of Gamification (Author’s Construct).
Author(s) Definition/Conceptualization
Huotari & Hamari (2012) A form of service packaging where a core service is
enhanced by a rules-based service system that provides
feedback and interaction mechanisms to the user to
facilitate and support the users’ overall value creation.
Deterding et al. (2011) The use of game design elements in nongame contexts.
Werbach & Hunter (2012) The use of game elements and game-design techniques in
nongame contexts.
Werbach (2014) The process of making activities more game-like.
Fitz-Walter (2015) A design strategy where game elements are used in non-
game applications to promote behavior change and
enhance the hedonistic qualities of the user experience.
Zichermann & The process of game-thinking and game mechanics to
Cunningham (2011) engage users and solve problems.
utilitarian effectiveness and emancipating the potential of game design-based
thinking” (p. 1).
Based on the aforementioned definitions, Folmar (2015) posits a description to
cover gamification in education and the adoption of game thinking in design.
He defined gamification as “the use of game thinking and game mechanics to meet
non-game ends” (p. 2). The main reason for the failure of most gamification
projects in an educational context is the lack of game thinking, which mandates
designers to rethink the teaching curriculum and practices. For the effectiveness of
gamification, game elements should be added when there is a clear understanding
of how gamification works in the educational context. In the words of Folmar
(2015), gamification is not just “making a game, which imparts a lesson; it is
applying game thinking to how we impart that lesson and continuing to develop
it based on the feedback from the players” (p. 5).
Importance of Gamification in Education
For most educational institutions, information systems are important success fac-
tors in teaching and learning (Ofosu-Ampong et al., 2019). Although many insti-
tutions channel huge investments into educational projects that seek to develop or
adapt existing information systems, most of their investment does not meet the goal
of the institution. The success of these information systems in education is for the
students or end-users to use the systems implemented (Hsieh & Wang, 2007).
The ensuing question, therefore, is how gamification can motivate end-users and
potential users in utilizing information systems. This has encouraged several
research studies in explaining user acceptance and perceptions of information sys-
tems in education and importantly in predicting user behaviors. Researchers have
Ofosu-Ampong 5
therefore focused on the hedonic aspect of systems by examining intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation for enhancing user experience and sustaining continuous
behaviors (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In this regard, gamification in information systems
tries to utilize the elements from game designs to improve educational outcomes,
make monotonous activities more enjoyable and make students assignments and
learning more engaging (D. Liu et al., 2017). Thus, gamification can result in
educational benefit especially to Generation Y who expect an interplay (Burke &
Hiltbrand, 2011) between learning and games, and to the institution a cost-saving
and improvement in performance (D. Liu et al., 2017).
Methodology for the Review
The downloaded articles used were from AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), Emerald,
and Science Direct. The main arguments outlined in conference proceedings and
working is factored, and the review used papers of peer-reviewed journal articles
(Webster & Watson, 2002). The descriptors employed in the search in all three
databases were “Gamification” OR “Gamification in Education.” The results from
the database were categorized and sorted accordingly after reviewing the abstracts
to ensure it included a gamification focus. The papers were selected from 2011 to
2018 inclusive and emphasized on gamification research in education. The meth-
odology of the review adopted made it possible for the author to search, identify,
and download the review materials. This was then placed in respective and labeled
sections on gamification themes, as discussed in the sections later. This initially
resulted in 315 papers, which were divided again to assess whether the papers were
education-level gamification study by reviewing the title and abstracts. After
excluding book chapters and duplicates, the articles remained 119.
Consequently, the evaluation resulted in the removal of business and other dis-
cipline research on gamification. After the removal of these papers, 88 papers
remained for further review and analysis. After further review, 32 articles out of
the 88 were considered to have a central focus on gamification in education. Base
on the identified classifications in Kirriemuir and McFarlane’s (2004) review on
Games and Learning, the 32 articles were coded after full-text read into three
themes to highlight gamification in education research (see Table 2). Other articles
fell in line with one or more themes and were classified as such and listed separately
as bridging article. To further depict the inclusion and exclusion of article papers for
this review, Figure 1 and the Appendix have been included to highlight the process.
Theme I: Development and Use of Gamification in Education
The development and use of gamification subcategory are related to the specific
gamified systems developed by software engineers for adoption and use by edu-
cational institutions. Kirriemuir and McFarlane (2004) describe this theme as
the categorization of games through complex interaction and narration and
6 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
Table 2. Articles by Themes.
Articles by Reviews by
Mixed themes from review Main theme themes themes
Development, software engineering Theme I— 10 articles Pedreira
process, game elements, Development and et al.
evaluation use of gamification (2015)
Software engineering education, Theme II—Application 4 articles Souza et al.
development frameworks, game of game elements (2018)
elements
E-learning, motivation, general, Theme III—Impact of 11 articles Alsawaier
effect of gamification on game elements (2018)
engagement
Gamification impact, gamification Themes I, II, and III 3 articles Osatuyi et al.
application programs, cognitive (bridging article) (2018)
belief, gamification theories
Note. The number of articles by themes is discussed under each theme.
Excluded after title and abstract screening (N=114)
315 articles 201 articles
Excluded book chapters and duplicates (N=82)
Full text unavailable (N=31) Excluded after full text reading (N=56)
119 articles 88 articles 32 articles
Excluded after title and abstract screening (N=114)
Figure 1. Screening Process in a Flow Diagram.
emphasis the prevalence of gameplay in education. In the development and use
stage, Kirriemuir and McFarlane’s (2004) examined learners’ motivation to use
digital games and considered the activity as “a process of participation in prac-
tice rather than a process of acquisition of facts or disconnected ‘pieces’ of
information, i.e. doing rather than knowing” (p. 14).
Similarly, research under the development category of gamified systems has
focused on software engineering processes that have been objects of gamifica-
tion. Classification of the processes that has appeared in studies are grouped
into six main blocks, namely,
project management (containing the areas of project planning and project assess-
ment and control), software requirements (stakeholder requirements definition),
Ofosu-Ampong 7
system requirements definition (software requirements analysis), software develop-
ment (software implementation), software testing (software testing and verifica-
tion), and support processes (process improvement, problem resolution, knowledge
management, and configuration management). (see Pedreira et al., 2015, p. 161).
Proposed solutions and philosophical papers dominant more than half of the
primary studies on gamification have no experimental validation.
Recent studies espoused the design principles, while earlier studies focused on
conceptualizing gamification design. For instance, Kankanhalli et al. (2012)
preliminarily reviewed gamification concepts and sampled applications by ana-
lyzing their goals, composition, benefits, and impact (motives, design techni-
ques, and outcomes of gamification). Similarly, Ofosu-Ampong and Boateng
(2018) examined learners’ perceptions of gamification in learning as an anteced-
ent to the development of a gamified system that focused on improving student
learning outcomes through user-centric design principles.
They reported that students are highly receptive to the idea of learning
through gamified courses. The study further identified the perceptions of under-
graduate/postgraduate students on the development of a learning management
system (LMS; Sakai) using game design elements. They questioned students
about their gaming experiences, their expectations of gamification in education,
and opinions on the importance of specific game design elements to increase
enjoyment in a gamified course. Similarly, Scho€bel et al. (2016) suggest that
gamified environments can feature different competitive structures and cooper-
ative dynamics. The scholars called for future studies to analyze user preferences
to properly match gamification elements to the cooperative and competitive
configurations of learners during the development of gamified classes.
Features of Gamification and the Nature of Gamified Learning
The review identified some features of gamification and the nature of gamified
learning under the development and use of gamification. For instance, Chang
and Wei (2016) identified and explored massive online open course (MOOC)
and the mechanics drawn from the gamification. The study identified redeem-
able points, trophies, virtual goods, leaderboards, wordless pictures, and badges
as the most engaging and ranked game mechanics. Furthermore, poor game
feature or mechanics were recognized as the reason for why most online learning
platforms or MOOC fail to achieve their educational goals. The authors pro-
vided a hierarchical feature of gamification to assist educators, online learning
and MOOC operators the opportunity to provide an improved student engage-
ment and experience.
The research by Mettler and Pinto (2015) sought to use serious games to
disseminate research findings to wider academic and research professional com-
munities. The authors provided a detailed review of serious games and
8 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
highlighted the features of game design that are lacking in the design of peda-
gogical systems. The lack of design features prevented it from its widespread use
in educational setups. A proposed framework includes features such as expect-
ations, ideas, feedback, and continuance use of the target system by the poten-
tial users in the game development. The scholars conclude that user engagement
is paramount to the use of serious games in educational institutions.
Caton and Greenhill (2014) developed some features and framework that
sought to improve participation and attendance in a computer module game
for undergraduates. The common features used to motivate, and prompt disen-
gaged students (in the trail group) were awards and penalties (in the form of
yellow cards and red cards). The yellow represented student’s low or no partic-
ipation in class or group activities like discussions and red card represented a
deduction of 25 marks from their overall project grade. Awards were presented
in the form of points and badges for successful participation and completion of
the project assignment. The study found that the trail group performed better
(higher percentage) produced superior project assignment and were interested in
participating in class activities than the controlled group. The instructors also
identified improvement in participation and attendance with the penalty system.
The literature review on the features of gamification and the nature of gami-
fied learning in education found that poor game features or mechanics results in
failed educational goals and effective game mechanics such as virtual goods,
trophies, and redeemable points can improve engagement and performance.
The observation is that knowledge transfer could benefit from serious games
through the iterative design process, prompt feedback, expectations, and con-
tinuance use of the target system by the potential users in the game develop-
ment. In addition, penalties and awards systems were found to improve
student’s participation and attendance in a gamified environment.
Theme II: Application of Gamification in Education
Motivational affordances and flow experience are vital to the potential of gami-
fication in education. Ryan and Deci (2000) differentiate between intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is situated in a given task while extrin-
sic motivation focus on external rewards such as financial compensation. This
category is related to incorporating game elements into learning systems. First,
contrary to the status quo in gamification research, Scho€bel et al. (2016) con-
ducted a literature review to analyze and test which gamification elements and
bundles LMS users most prefer. The focus was on increasing engagement and
motivation. They also investigated the number and combination of gamification
elements users would implement in an LMS. They found that LMS users prefer
a bundle and combination of four gamification elements (i.e., levels, points,
status, and goals) and that these elements are more relevant to users than leader-
boards and badges. In addition, the authors found that LMS users like to
Ofosu-Ampong 9
compete against themselves rather than other users, which indicates that the
interaction between game elements components and how well they align with
the gamified system’s objectives shape a student’s experience (Cheong et al.,
2014).
In addition, we also considered the classification of gamification elements or
mechanics popularly used and found no generally accepted taxonomy for the
game elements. We therefore made a list consisting of gamification elements
from the four sampled review papers (Alsawaier, 2018; Osatuyi et al., 2018;
Pedreira et al., 2015; Souza et al., 2018). The gamification elements found in
the primary studies (top four reviews) were awards (given on completion of a
task), points (rewards in the form of points), badges (achievement of tasks), levels
(increase in points), and quests (task to complete). This indicates that developers
need to consider user preferences rather than assume the one-size-fit-all approach
that pushes popular elements (e.g., badges and point systems) on learners.
Theme III: Gamification in Education and Impact
The importance of users reflects this section by supporting the argument of the
inclusion of learners in the gamification design (Kallookaran & Robra-Bissantz,
2016). This argument explains the success and failure of gamification systems.
Referring to Kirriemuir and McFarlane’s (2004), “learning is at its most vibrant
when it has relevance to the learner” (p. 21). Research in this subcategory pri-
mary concerns the effects of gamification on learners and instructors; and exam-
ines the impact of gamification on users such as their attitudes (acceptance of
game elements in education), emotions, learning, cognitive belief and behavior,
and the impact on their learning performance (Cheong et al., 2014).
Others studies focus on the effect of a gamified activity on learning (Cheong
et al., 2013a); students’ learning outcomes (Marshburn & Henry, 2013); coor-
dination and interconnection (Kallookaran & Robra-Bissantz, 2016), and stu-
dents motivation (Cheong et al., 2013b; Mekler et al., 2013; Su & Cheng, 2015).
From the perspective of educationists, others examined whether gamification
leads to an increase or decreased participation and engagement (e.g., Cheong
et al., 2013a, 2013b; Freeman & Freeman, 2013; Kokkinaki et al., 2015).
Gamification Research: Conceptual Approaches
This section discusses the theoretical and framework approaches to gamification
research to suggest conceptual gaps for future research. Most of the theoretical
approaches underlying gameplay and gamification are guided by intrinsic moti-
vation. The theories employed include the self-determination theory (SDT) in its
original form or in an extended it (addition of new constructs) to measure user
engagement and motivation. The SDT—a theory of motivation (Ryan & Deci,
2000)—is thus the most prominent in gamification research. Some recent studies
10 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
exclusively use SDT to examine gamification (e.g., L. Liu & Stacey, 2015;
Scho€bel & So€llner, 2016), whereas earlier studies (e.g., Kankanhalli et al.,
2012) combined this theory with other theories, such as the cognitive evaluation
theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985b) and the theory of gamified learning (Landers,
2015). For example, van Roy et al. (2018) in a theory development use SDT
to examine how gamification works on a psychological needs perspective of
students by analyzing student’s involvement and processes in the gamified
course and how they assign meaning to the badges or PBL. Using a qualitative
approach to unearth the results, they found that badges which serve as encour-
agement are considered performance-contingent rewards in that it facilitates the
successful completion of learning activities. The theoretical implication of this
study is that badges, on the whole, do not produce specific motivational effects
on a consistent basis, however, produces varied motivational functions or con-
flicting results.
In the context of games or game design elements, Ryan et al. (2006) conclude
that “people are attracted to video games because they experience autonomy,
competence, and relatedness while playing”(p. 2). In light of this, other studies
use the flow theory (Kankanhalli et al., 2012; Korn, 2012), developed by
Csikszentmihalyi (1990), and self-efficacy theory (Kamal et al., 2013; Sjoklint
et al., 2013; Vassileva, 2012) by Bandura (1977) to predict learner behaviors and
outcomes. In gamification, flow theory posits a certain level of challenge. The
challenge corresponds to the skills of the player, with a clear goal and immediate
feedback to facilitate a state of flow in the game.
On the other hand, the self-efficacy theory looks at the players’ perception of
the games in terms of completion and winning (i.e., personal belief and ability to
succeed necessitate their intentions to play). Other evident theories applied to
gamification and education include the theory of planned behavior (Hamari &
Koivisto, 2013; Vassileva, 2012), the theory of gamified learning (Ofosu-
Ampong & Boateng, 2018), and uses and gratification theory (Kamal et al.,
2013; Kankanhalli et al., 2012). Notwithstanding the various theories applied
to gamification, the review identified a gap (disconnect) between theories and
practice. Accordingly, the growth of the field is limited in instances where the-
ories are unexamined empirically in gamification (Alsawaier, 2018; Seaborn &
Fels, 2015). To bridge the gap between theory and practice in the field of
gamification, there is a need for research with strong theoretical links.
Furthermore, studies which adopt framework-based approaches include (a) a
model to investigate preference for the use of gamification in a learning activity
(Filippou et al., 2014), (b) social gamification framework for a K-6 learning
platform (Simo~es et al., 2012), (c) gamification of learning and instruction:
game-based methods and strategies for training and education, and (d) a
method for the design of gamified training (Helms et al., 2015). Table 3 repre-
sents the research issues and conceptual approaches.
11
Table 3. Conceptual Approaches to Gamification Research (Authors’ Constructs).
Gamification in
Education Classification of con-
subcategory Research issue ceptual approach Study
Development Gamification: a new paradigm for online user Theoretical Kankanhalli et al. (2012)
and use of engagement
gamification
Gamifying information systems—adapting gamification Framework Scho€bel & So€llner (2016)
to individual preferences
Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: a Theoretical Hamari (2013)
field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian
peer-to-peer trading service
Gamifying LMS (Sakai): understanding the perception of Theoretical Cheong et al. (2014);
students on game elements for learning Ofosu-Ampong & Boateng
(2018)
Understanding the effects of mobile gamification on Theoretical Wu & Wang (2014)
learning performance
A model to investigate preference for the use of Framework Filippou et al. (2014)
gamification in a learning activity
A social gamification framework for a K-6 learning Framework Simo~es et al. (2012)
platform
The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based Framework Kapp (2012)
methods and strategies for training and education
A method for the design of gamified training Framework Helms et al. (2015)
Application of Identifying student types (gaming habit) in a gamified NA Barata et al. (2013)
gamification learning experience
Using design science research to incorporate gamifica- Framework Cheong et al. (2013b)
tion into learning activities
(continued)
12
Table 3. Continued
Gamification in
Education Classification of con-
subcategory Research issue ceptual approach Study
Incorporating game dynamics in LMS Framework Frost et al. (2015)
Impact of Gamification of technology-mediated training: not all Theoretical Santhanam et al. (2016)
gamification competition is the same
Investigating how social factors predict attitude towards Theoretical Hamari & Koivisto (2013)
gamification and intention to continue using gamified
services
Twittermania: understanding how social media technol- Theoretical Osatuyi & Passerini (2016)
ogies impact engagement and academic performance
of a new generation of learners
Engaging engineering students with gamification NA Barata et al. (2013)
Investigates how social factors predict attitude towards Theoretical Hamari & Koivisto (2014)
gamification and intention to continue using gamified
services
The corresponding increase in students’ motivation and Theory Botha & Herselman (2016);
learning achievement (interpersonal relationship and Filippou et al. (2014);
performance with gamification Marshburn & Henry (2013);
Pelopida & Kokkinaki (2014);
Su & Cheng (2015); Wu &
Wang (2014)
Note. LMS¼ learning management system; NA¼ not applicable.
Ofosu-Ampong 13
Gamification Research: Methodological Approaches
This section discusses the methodological approaches used in gamification
research. The two main approaches used in gamification research are nonempir-
ical and empirical research methods. The nonempirical research methods used
were conceptual orientation (Lee & Hammer, 2011), illustration (Stokes, 2005),
design science (Fitz-Walter, 2015; Simo~es et al., 2010), and theoretical analysis
(Stott & Neustaedter, 2013). Empirical research methods (systematic collection
and analysis of data) include sample survey which was widely used (Filippou
et al., 2014; Ofosu-Ampong & Boateng, 2018; Scho€bel et al., 2016), simulation
(Su & Cheng, 2015), and experiment—randomized control trails (Boeker et al.,
2013; Cheong et al., 2013a; Hamari & Koivisto, 2013; Zichermann &
Cunningham, 2011). Survey and experiment were the quantitative empirical
research methods that recorded the highest number in 2017 and were most
prevalent, accounting for 70% of gamification research (Osatuyi et al., 2018).
Studies that used qualitative empirical research method were very few (Aldemir
et al., 2018; Insley & Nunan, 2014) but was very detailed and in-depth. A study
by Insley and Nunan (2014) reported that game design elements are useful in
promoting and enhancing the experience of users but cautioned that without
appropriate management, users can subvert gamification strategies to create
their games which increases competitive pressure between them.
Discussion of Issues and Evidence
First, concerning the development and use of gamification, institutions face
numerous challenges in the design of gamification. The possible means of over-
coming this challenge has been the sharing of experiences and findings on the
design of gamified programs (Osatuyi et al., 2018). Recent studies focus on
developing design principles (Cheong et al., 2013b; Kankanhalli et al., 2012;
Ofosu-Ampong & Boateng, 2018), whereas previous studies conceptualized
the design of courses or learning materials to be gamified. Documenting how
institutions overcome gamification challenges provide design roadmaps and
insights which are useful for developers who seek to gamify classes. The study
identified the need for future studies to develop recommendations for gamified
courses using the design science approach. Thus, previous studies on design
suggest that design principles governing gamification in recent studies are not
entirely identified and the gap may be known in future research (El-Masri et al.,
2015; Pedreira et al., 2015).
To this end, El-Masri et al. (2015) provide the seven design principles of
educational games. These designs, when systematically followed, benefit the
instructors and students in improving students’ performance. The studies
focused on the effects of game elements on learners and examined the design
of gamified mobile platforms in a model-verification study (Wu & Wang, 2014).
14 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
Thus, creating a typology that motivates and engages learners through game
elements enhances learning outcomes and quick feedback. Research in this cat-
egory recognizes the different behaviors and motives of players or learners and
should endeavor to understand these different learners at every stage of the
design. Thus, new studies should focus on tailoring incentives that motivate
learners over time, examining each segment of learners, and adopting game
elements that best suit learners.
During the review, we identified future research from the category of devel-
opment and use of gamification. In considering gamification, gamified environ-
ments feature different cooperative dynamics and competitive structures.
Hence, the call for further studies to investigate user preference to match the
cooperative dynamics and competitive structures with the gamified environment
and, most importantly, before designing the system for learners (Scho€bel et al.,
2016). Also, to better understand game elements for learner’s use, Cheong et al.
(2014) recommend a longitudinal study. They indicate that based on the feed-
back and assessments of instructors and learners, game elements should be
incorporated into educational systems and studied throughout its use.
Similarly, Ofosu-Ampong & Boateng (2018) propose incorporating game ele-
ments into existing LMSs. Kokkinaki et al. (2015) also recommend further
studies on how gamification can be developed to promote all facets of the gen-
eral pedagogical strategies in teaching and learning.
Application Programs of Gamification
Concerning the application programs of gamification, previous studies focus on
user’s different kinds of game elements in LMS, which motivates and engages
them. The most combined and preferred game design elements are points, levels,
goals and status. Also, game players prefer to compete against themselves rather
than other players, which indicates that the interaction between game elements’
components, mechanics and how well they align with the gamified system
(objectives) shape students experience (Cheong et al., 2014). However, within
gamification research, learning outcomes are not directly affected by applying
game elements alone irrespective of the type of LMS in place (Scho€bel et al.,
2016). Consequently, there is the need to align the gamified system to the inter-
actions and behavioral intentions of students to identify how the game elements
can lead to student’s meaningful engagement (Ofosu-Ampong et al., 2019).
Furthermore, Table 4 shows that empirical research on gamified activities is
diverse and entails different combinations of game elements and different
results. As can be seen in the table, points, leaderboards, and badges are the
dominant the game elements mostly used, however, “without a discernible sys-
tematic experimental approach, it is difficult to identify which game elements or
configurations are most effective in promoting engagement and supporting
learning for a given activity and group of learners” (Dichev & Dicheva,
15
Table 4. Review of Literature on Game Elements for Motivating Learners.
Result of
Game elements Content gamified Related theory impact Study
Points and rewards mHealth App—measuring blood glu- NA Positive Cafazzo et al. (2012)
cose level
Points, rewards and badges Electrical course NA Positive Todor & Pitica (2013)
Badges NA Intrinsic motivation Positive Gibson et al. (2015)
Points, badges and status Social interaction forum Intrinsic and extrinsic Negativea Thom et al. (2012)
motivation
Levels and graphical rewards Teaching physical activity NA Positive Consolvo et al. (2008)
Leaderboards and points Computer environmental course NA Positive Gnauk et al. (2012)
Progress bars and rewards Teaching e-learning software Behaviorism/learning Positive Raymer (2011)
theory
Graphical rewards, feedback and Course in health and sustainable NA Negative Y. Liu et al. (2011)
points behaviors
Leaderboards, points, and levels Computer software course Motivational theory Negative Berkling & Thomas (2013)
Points and leaderboards Electronic media course Situated motivational Mixed Leaning (2015)
affordance
Levels, badges and points Teaching software engineering NA Positive Kumar & Khurana (2012)
and programming
Progress bars, points, leaderboards, Gamified quiz Mediators from Positive Filippou et al. (2014)
charts and timers Technology
acceptance
Badges and leaderboards Teaching college modules NA Positive Hanus & Fox (2015)
Leaderboards, ranks, points, real- Virtual 3D avatars development NA Positiveb Featherstone & Habgood
world rewards course (2018)
Challenges, levels, points leader- Teaching a computer engineering NA Positive Barata et al. (2013)
boards, badges course
Note. NA¼ not applicable.
aParticipants’ motivation declined significantly with the removal of game elements.
bParticipants cheat when there is lack of motivation since they want to progress in the line of duty meaningfully.
16 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
2017, p. 14). By adopting a systematic experimental approach, future research
can map out the effectiveness of game elements configurations in supporting
learners. The following are results of game elements reviewed and widely used
by researchers and practitioners to motivate and engage learners.
Villagrasa et al. (2014) sought to increase students’ motivation and engage-
ment in a computer animations program by applying gamification and visual
technologies. Using a mixed-method approach to identify the positive and neg-
ative implications of the system, the LMS which was gamified utilized game
mechanics such as points, badges, avatars, and quest. The gamified LMS
employed LEGO themes which display the adventure maps, analytics, avatars
and missions to offer students a gamified social environment to collaborate in
discussions, receive feedback on assignments, and compete. The study found a
positive perception and a high motivation among students to work in a 3D with
the gamified system.
Gamification and Impact
The impact and outcomes of gamification are witnessed in most studies (Hanus
& Fox, 2015). Research under the impact of gamification is categorized into
seven identified themes (dominantly raised in the review), namely, cognitive
belief and behavior, attitude, performance, learning, interpersonal relationship,
motivation, and engagement. For example, Cheong et al. (2013a) examined the
effect of gamification on learning activities and how it impacts learning perfor-
mance. The study revealed that gamification improves learners’ self-efficacy and
productivity. Most studies adopted a sociotechnical approach of involving users
and seeking their views before designing the application. The papers also
revealed that students are open to learning with a gamified course and have a
strong desire for social interaction. For example, Ofosu-Ampong and Boateng
(2018) conducted an explorative study (precursor) for students in Ghana and
recommended that educational institutions should prioritize the use of existing
LMS or organizational systems used by students to incorporate the game design
elements. To the scholars, this prevents institutions from developing the system
(cost) from scratch. Because the students are used to the system, it becomes
easier accepting the new features incorporated. The students, on the other hand,
were receptive to the idea of including game elements in the Sakai LMS of the
university. Gamified courses should therefore focus on students’ progression
(performance) and quick feedback mechanism to encourage engagement.
The review found that empirical research on gamified systems are not clear
how gamification is influencing motivation. Most critical studies have put in
evidence that shows how their methodology increases extrinsic motivation and
reduces the intrinsic, which is fundamental for meaningful learning (Nicholson,
2012). However, experimental results in general studies show a positive relation-
ship between gamification and motivation intrinsic (Mekler et al., 2013), while
Ofosu-Ampong 17
others find no correlation in their studies (Mekler et al., 2013). The SDT proves
that gamification promotes a source of motivation between the dimensions of
introjection and identification of the model, that is, the student is motivated by
an improvement of him/herself, even if awarded extrinsically with badges and
other elements typical of the game (Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Gooch et al., 2016).
Furthermore, using game design elements to gamify an e-course on anti-
plagiarism, Pelopida and Kokkinaki (2014) focused on the initial development
and implementation in a classroom environment. The study reported that the
learners perceived the impact of game elements on their cognitive processes,
importantly enhancing their learning outcomes through mobile gamification.
Scho€bel and So€llner (2016) delve further by developing a framework to modify
the preference of users and user motivation patterns when incorporating game
elements into LMS. Wu and Wang (2014) applied gamification pedagogy to a
coursework to identify the different elements that promoted cognitive belief and
behaviour in learners and proposed a new pedagogical paradigm that encourages
situated mobile learning. Some studies also adapted course modules to individual
learners’ styles to encourage continual use. In exploring the impact of gamifica-
tion in education, the review found out that some elements of games were more
effective than others in motivating learners.
In an online game-annotation task, Mekler et al. (2013) found that points and
meaningful framing independently increased intrinsic motivation. Likewise,
Cheong et al. (2013b) found progress bars and leaderboards as the most effective
game elements that motivate learners. In addition, animations, video clips, and
educational games were found to effectively strengthen the potential for students’
to learning in a gamified setting (Kokkinaki et al., 2015). Other papers focused on
how designers integrate game elements and suggested a careful consideration in
this approach to boost learners. Hence, Helms et al. (2015) advised that despite
the potential benefit of gamification has on modifying learners’ motivation, one
need to systematically implement game elements into learning activities to avoid
the risk of focusing students’ attention on game elements (excitement) rather than
the intended goals. Other studies examined the effect of personal characteristics
on engagement in gamified learning. In using the technology-mediated learning
(TML) system approach, Shen et al. (2016) identified two individual differences—
gender and achievement goals—in competitive gamified TML designs. They
found that gender plays an important moderating role—males engage more
and learn better in a competitive learning context than females. Their findings
indicate that gender and achievement goals are significant individual differences
to consider in designing gamified TML and explaining its outcomes. The follow-
ing are the identified areas for further research based on this review. Thus, to
understand the influence on user cognition and psychological behaviors in learn-
ing, future research needs to explore how user characteristics interact with game
elements and under what conditions would a user interact more with the
gamified system.
18 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
With an emphasis on the fundamentals of learning in Bloom’s hierarchy (i.e.,
focus on the bottom layer), Cheong et al. (2014) incorporated game elements in an
IT program. They encouraged future research to focus on using different approaches
such as triangulation to “ascertain if gamification elements promote learning.” Also,
different approaches to implement gamification should be explored in educational
settings—as a means to position learning or teaching with gamified systems at the
top of Bloom’s hierarchy. Santhanam et al. (2016) also called for future studies to
investigate the degree to which gamification affected students’ cognitive behaviors
and recommended the need to apply the appropriate theoretical approaches to the
variations in gamification design concerning learners’ cognitive beli1efs.
In summary, for gamification to be proven effective and successful, it is
dependent on users using the gamified system in learning. Hence, measurement
should focus on context, performance, curriculum (course), and organizational
setup of the educational institution.
Limitation
The study focused on gamification literature on educational (learning motiva-
tions) publications, notwithstanding the industry prevalence of gamification stud-
ies. Consequently, other theories and phenomenon applying out of the scope of
education might be missing out due to the center-focused nature of the article.
Conclusion and Future Research Directions
By extending Kirriemuir and McFarlane’s (2004) investigation into games and
education, this article highlights and advance the development and use of game
design elements, application of game design elements, and the impact of game
design elements. Overall, the study draws a conclusion of gamification in edu-
cation and the trajectory of game elements research over time and provides some
design guidelines for future gamified systems.
The study found that understanding the learners and the classroom environment
is considered a vital recommendation for educational institutions planning on adopt-
ing gamification. Also, specific game elements need to be investigated for use rather
than assume an underlying concept (Hanus & Fox, 2015). Thus, generalizing game
elements for learners without understanding the context of the educational institu-
tions or user background is a recipe for gamification failure.
Gaps Identified
In studying the impact of gamification on learners, there is a need for a more
complex model that includes moderating and mediating variables. To this end,
recent studies have added variables like motivation and game preference, unlike
the personality of the learner and learning environments. It is the hope of the
Ofosu-Ampong 19
researcher that future research will continue to explore gamification in educa-
tion and examine the interplay of students and institutional factors in determin-
ing behavioral and continual use of gamified systems.
Appendix
Process involved in identifying articles for the review 
Conduct keyword search in
AIS Electronic Library
(AISeL), Emerald, and The focus of the paper should 
Science Direct be gamification
Search term- TITLE- ABS-KEY
The gamified paper should be Removing papers not meeting
empirical and from education inclusion criteria
context (final papers extracted - 32)
Coding the papers on the 
three dominant themes 
identified in Kirriemuir 
and McFarlane (2004)
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.
20 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
ORCID iD
Kingsley Ofosu-Ampong https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0561-6376
References
Aldemir, T., Celik, B., & Kaplan, G. (2018). A qualitative investigation of student percep-
tions of game elements in a gamified course.Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 235–254.
Alsawaier, R. S. (2018). The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement.
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(1), 56–79.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2013). Improving participation and
learning with gamification. In International Conference on Gameful Design, Research,
and Applications (pp. 10–17). ACM.
Berkling, K., & Thomas, C. (2013). Gamification of a software engineering course.
In International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (pp. 525–530). IEEE.
Boeker, M., Andel, P., Vach, W., & Frankenschmidt, A. (2013). Game-based e-learning
is more effective than a conventional instructional method: A randomized controlled
trial with third-year medical students. PLoS One, 8(12), e82328.
Botha, A., & Herselman, M. (2016, May 18–20). Rural teachers as innovative co-
creators: An intentional teacher professional development strategy. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Information Resources Management. Cape Town,
South Africa.
Burke, M., & Hiltbrand, T. (2011). How Gamification Will Change Business Intelligence.
Business Intelligence Journal, 16(2), 8–16.
Cafazzo, J. A., Casselman, M., Hamming, N., Katzman, D. K., & Palmert, M. R. (2012).
Design of an mHealth app for the self-management of adolescent type 1 diabetes: A pilot
study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14, e70. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2058.
Caton, H., & Greenhill, D. (2014). Rewards and penalties: A gamification approach for
increasing attendance and engagement in an undergraduate computing module.
International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 4(3), 1–12.
Chang, J. W., & Wei, H. Y. (2016). Exploring engaging gamification mechanics in mas-
sive online open courses. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 177–203.
Cheong, C., Cheong, F., & Filippou, J. (2013a). Quick quiz: A gamified approach for
enhancing learning. In Lee, J. N., Mao, J. Y., & Thong, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–14). AIS Electronic Library.
Cheong, C., Cheong, F., & Filippou, J. (2013b). Using design science research to
incorporate gamification into learning activities. In Lee, J. N., Mao, J. Y., &
Thong, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems
(pp. 1–14). AIS Electronic Library.
Cheong, C., Filippou, J., & Cheong, F. (2014). Towards the gamification of learning:
Investigating student perceptions of game elements. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 25(3), 233–244.
Consolvo, S., Klasnja, P., McDonald, D. W., Avrahami, D., Froehlich, J., LeGrand, L.,
Libby, R., Mosher, K., & Landay, J. A. (2008). Flowers or a robot army?
Encouraging awareness and activity with personal, mobile display. In UbiComp
Ofosu-Ampong 21
2008: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (pp.
54–63). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1409635.1409644.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). The general causality orientations scale: Self- deter-
mination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–134.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). Cognitive evaluation theory. Springer.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). Gamification: Toward a def-
inition [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011.
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.
El-Masri, M., Tarhini, A., Hassouna, M., & Elyas, T. (2015). A design science approach
to gamify education: From games to platforms. In Proceedings of the European
Conference on Information Systems (pp. 26–38). AIS Electronic Library.
Featherstone, M., & Habgood, J. (2018). UniCraft: Exploring the impact of asynchro-
nous multiplayer game elements in gamification. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 127, 150–168.
Filippou, J., Cheong, C., & Cheong, F. (2014). Improving study habits using a
behaviour change framework incorporating social motivation and gamification
[Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information
Systems, PACIS 2014 Proceedings (pp. 264). http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2014/264
Fitz-Walter, Z. J. (2015). Achievement unlocked: Investigating the design of effective gami-
fication experiences for mobile applications and devices [Doctoral dissertation].
Queensland University of Technology.
Folmar, D. (2015). Game it Up!: Using gamification to incentivize your library (Vol. 7).
Rowman and Littlefield.
Freeman, M. B., & Freeman, A. (2013). The game of information systems higher edu-
cation. In IAIM Proceedings (pp. 1–14). SIGed: IAIM.
Frost, R. D., Matta, V., & MacIvor, E. (2015). Assessing the efficacy of incorporating
game dynamics in a learning management system. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 26(1), 59–70.
Gibson, D., Ostashewski, N., Flintoff, K., Grant, S., & Knight, E. (2015). Digital badges
in education. Education and Information Technology, 20(2), 403–410. https://doi.org/
10. 1007/s10639-013-9291-7
Gnauk, B., Dannecker, L., & Hahmann, M. (2012). Leveraging gamification in
demand dispatch systems. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint EDBT/ICDT Workshops
(pp. 103–110). ACM.
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). ACM.
Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment
on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic commerce
research and applications, 12(4), 236–245.
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013). Social motivations to use gamification: An empirical
study of gamifying exercise [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the European
Conference on Information Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands, 5–8 June 2013.
22 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
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 and Education, 80, 152–161.
Helms, R. W., Barneveld, R., & Dalpiaz, F. (2015). A method for the design of gamified
trainings [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on
Information Systems. http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2015.
Hsieh, P. J. J., & Wang, W. (2007). Explaining employees’ extended use of complex
information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(3), 216–227.
Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design
and game research [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the Challenges in Games AI
Workshop. 19th National Conference of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1–5). AAAI Press.
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification: A service marketing perspective
[Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek
Conference, Tampere, Finland.
Insley, V., & Nunan, D. (2014). Gamification and the online retail experience.
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 42(5), 340–351.
Kallookaran, M., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2016). Using gamification to decrease anonymity
in larger learning environments. In Proceedings of the Americas Conference on
Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2016/ISEdu/Presentations/1/
Kamal, N., Fels, S., McGrenere, J., & Nance, K. (2013). Helping me helping you:
Designing to influence health behaviour through social connections. In IFIP
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 708–725). Springer.
Kankanhalli, A., Taher, M., Cavusoglu, H., & Kim, S. H. (2012). Gamification: A new
paradigm for online user engagement. In Proceedings of the 33rd International
Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, FL.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and
strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons.
Kim, A. J. (2011). Smart gamification: Seven core concepts for creating compelling expe-
riences. http://www.youtube.com/watch
Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature review in games and learning.
A Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol: Futurelab. http://www. futur
elab.org.uk
Kokkinaki, A. I., Christoforos, A., & Melanthiou, Y. (2015). Integrating open educa-
tional resources to foster serious games and gamification design principles [Paper
presentation]. Proceedings of the Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems.
MCIS 2015 Proceedings. (pp.23). http://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2015/23
Kumar, B., & Khurana, P. (2012). Gamification in education: Learn computer
programming with fun. International Journal of Computers and Distributed Systems,
2(1), 46–53.
Landers, N. R. (2015). Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games
and gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 752–768.
Leaning, M. (2015). A study of the use of games and gamification to enhance student
engagement, experience, and achievement on a theory-based course of an undergrad-
uate media degree. Journal of Media Practice, 16(2), 155–170. http://doi.org/10.1080/
14682753.2015.1041807
Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: What, how, why bother?
Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2), 1–5.
Ofosu-Ampong 23
Liu, D., Santhanam, R., & Webster, J. (2017). Toward meaningful engagement: A frame-
work for design and research of gamified information systems. MIS Quarterly,
41(4),1011-1034.
Liu, L., & Stacey, P. K. (2015). The development process of intrinsic gamification in a
learning difficulty context [Paper presentation]. UK Academy for Information Systems
Conference Proceedings (UKAIS), Oxford, UK.
Liu, Y., Alexandrova, T., & Nakajima, T. (2011). Gamifying intelligent environment. In
Proceedings of the 2011 International ACM Workshop on Ubiquitous Meta User
Interfaces (pp. 7–12). ACM.
Marshburn, D. G., & Henry, R. M. (2013). Improving knowledge coordination in early
stages of software development using gamification [Paper presentation]. In
Proceedings of the Southern Association for Information Systems Conference, SAIS
2013 Proceedings (pp. 23). http://aisel.aisnet.org/sais2013/23
Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Opwis, K., & Tuch, A. N. (2013). Disassembling gami-
fication: The effects of points and meaning on user motivation and performance
[Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, 27 April 2013 (pp. 1137–1142).
Mettler, T., & Pinto, R. (2015). Serious games as a means for scientific knowledge trans-
fer—A case from engineering management education. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 62(2), 256–265.
Nicholson, S. (2012). Strategies for meaningful gamification: Concepts behind transfor-
mative play and participatory museums. Meaningful Play. http://scottnicholson.com/
pubs/meaningfulstrategies.pdf
Ofosu-Ampong, K., & Boateng, R. (2018). Gamifying Sakai: Understanding game ele-
ments for learning. In Twenty-fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp.
1–10). Association for Information Systems Electronic Library.
Ofosu-Ampong, K., Boateng, R., Anning-Dorson, T., & Kolog, E. A. (2019). Are we
ready for Gamification? An exploratory analysis in a developing country. Education
and Information Technologies, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10057-7.
Osatuyi, B., Osatuyi, T., & de la Rosa, R. (2018). Systematic review of gamification
research in IS education: A multi-method approach. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 42(1), 5.
Osatuyi, B., & Passerini, K. (2016). Twittermania: Understanding how social media
technologies impact engagement and academic performance of a new generation of
learners. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 39, 23.
Pedreira, O., Garcıa, F., Brisaboa, N., & Piattini, M. (2015). Gamification in software
engineering—A systematic mapping. Information and Software Technology, 57, 157–168.
Pelopida, P., & Kokkinaki, A. I. (2014). Employing gameful design and development for
an open educational resource on anti-plagiarism [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings
of the 8th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Verona, Italy, 3–5
September. CD-ROM. ISBN: 978-88-6787-273-2. http://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2014/9
Raymer, R. (2011). Gamification: Using game mechanics to enhance eLearning. eLearn
Magazine. http://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=2031772
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.
24 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video
games: A self-determination theory approach.Motivation and emotion, 30(4), 344–360.
Santhanam, R., Liu, D., & Shen, W. C. M. (2016). Gamification of technology-mediated
training: Not all competitions are the same. Information Systems Research, 27(2),
453–465.
Scho€bel, S., & So€llner, M. (2016). How to gamify information systems-adapting gamifi-
cation to individual user preferences [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the 24th
European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), 2016. Istanbul, Turkey.
Scho€bel, S., So€llner, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2016). The agony of choice–analyzing user
preferences regarding gamification elements in learning management systems [Paper
presentation]. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Information
Systems, Dublin, Ireland. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2016/HumanBehavior/
Presentations/10/
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14–31.
Shen, W. C. M., Liu, D., Santhanam, R., & Evans, D. A. (2016). Gamified technology-
mediated learning: The role of individual differences [Paper presentation]. In
Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, PACIS 2016
Proceedings (pp. 47). http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2016/47
Simo~es, J., Redondo, R., Vilas, A., & Aguiar, A. (2014). Using gamification to improve
participation in social learning environments. Learning and Diversity in the Cities of
the Future (pp. 169–185).
Souza, M. R., Veado, L., Moreira, R. T., Figueiredo, E., & Costa, H. (2018). A system-
atic mapping study on game-related methods for software engineering education.
Information and Software Technology, 95, 201–218.
Stokes, B. G. (2005). Videogames have changed: Time to consider serious games?
Development Education Journal, 11(3), 12.
Stott, A., & Neustaedter, C. (2013). Analysis of gamification in education (technical
report no. 2013-0422-01). Simon Fraser University.
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.
Thom, J., Millen, D., & DiMicco, J. (2012). Removing gamification from an enterprise
SNS. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work. Presented at CSCW’12 (pp. 1067–1070). ACM.
Todor, V., & Pitica, D. (2013). The gamification of the study of electronics in dedicated e-
learning platforms. In Proceedings of the 36th International Spring Seminar on
Electronics Technology (pp. 428–431). IEEE.
van Roy, R., Deterding, S., & Zaman, B. (2018). Collecting Pokemon or receiving
rewards? How people functionalise badges in gamified online learning environments
in the wild. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 127, 62–80. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.09.003.
Vassileva, J. (2012). Motivating participation in social computing applications: A user
modeling perspective. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(1–2), 177–201.
Vesa, M., & Harviainen, J. T. (2018). Gamification: Concepts, consequences, and cri-
tiques. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(2), 128–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1056492618790911
Ofosu-Ampong 25
Villagrasa, S., Fonseca, D., Redondo, E., & Duran, J. (2014). Teaching case of gamifi-
cation and visual technologies for education. Journal of Cases on Information
Technology (JCIT), 16(4), 38–57.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing
a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
Werbach, K. (2014). (Re) defining gamification: A process approach. In International
conference on persuasive technology (pp. 266–272). Springer.
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your
business. Wharton Digital Press.
Wu, Y. L., & Wang, W. T. (2014). Understanding the effects of mobile gamification on
learning performance [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the 20th Americas
Conference on Information Systems. AIS Electronic Library. https://aisel.aisnet.org/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1693&context=amcis2014
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game
mechanics in web and mobile apps. O’Reilly Media.
Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (1989). The gamification revolution, 2013, ISBN: 978-963-
9493-69-8M. Young, the technical writer’s handbook. University Science.
Author Biography
Kingsley Ofosu-Ampong is a doctoral candidate in Information Systems at the
University of Ghana Business School. He holds a BA and MBA degree in
Management Information Systems from Ghana. Kingsley’s current research
focuses on gamification, issues on human-computer interactions, technology-
enhanced learning and motivational information systems. He is the current
Vice President of the Association for Information Systems Special Interest
Group for Game Design and Research (AIS SIGGAME). Kingsley can be
reached at kingofosu11@ gmail.com