CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 341Educational Games and GamificationDigital Games and MediaOnline Learning and Analytics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tailored gamification in education: A literature review and future agenda

Open access
Oliveira, Wilk, Hamari, Juho, Shi, Lei, Toda, Armando M., Rodrigues, Luiz, Palomino, Paula T., Isotani, Seiji·2023·Education and Information Technologies
DOI 10.1007/s10639-022-11122-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Gamification has been widely used to design better educational systems aiming to increase students’ concentration, motivation, engagement, flow experience, and others positive experiences. With advances in research on gamification in education, over the past few years, many studies have highlighted the need to tailor the gamification design properties to match individual students’ needs, characteristics and preferences. Thus, different studies have been conducted to personalize the gamification in education. However, the results are still contradictory and need to be better understood to advance this field. To provide a complete understanding of this research domain, we conducted a systematic literature review to summarize the results and discussions on studies that cover the field of tailored gamified education. Following a systematic process, we analysed 2108 studies and identified 19 studies to answer our research questions. The results indicate that most of the studies only consider students’ gamer types to tailor the systems, and most of the experiments do not provide sufficient statistical evidence, especially regarding learning performance using tailored gamified systems. Based on the results, we also provided an agenda with different challenges, opportunities, and research directions to improve the literature on tailored gamification in education. Our study contributes to the field of gamification design in education.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10639-022-11122-4

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 90 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Bai, S, Hew, K F, & Huang, B. (2020). Is gamification “bullshit”? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts. Educational Research Review, 100322. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bartle, R (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit muds. Journal of MUD Research, 1(1), 19.
  3. Battistella, P E, & von Wangenheim, C G (2016). Engaged: Engaged: A game development process for teaching computing. In Brazilian symposium on computers in education, (Vol. 27 p. 380).
  4. Bourdieu, P (2017). Habitus. In Habitus: A sense of place (pp. 59–66). Routledge.
  5. Kapp, K M (2012). Games, gamification, and the quest for learner engagement. T+ D, 66(6), 64–68.
  6. Orji, R, Mandryk, R L, Vassileva, J, & Gerling, K M (2013). Tailoring persuasive health games to gamer type. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2467–2476). ACM. · DOI
  7. Santos, W O, Bittencourt, I I, Isotani, S, Dermeval, D, Marques, L B , & Silveira, I F (2018). Flow theory to promote learning in educational systems: Is it really relevant? Brazilian Journal of Computers in Education, 26(02), 29.
  8. Stuart, H, Serna, A, Marty, J-C, & Lavoué, E (2019). Adaptive gamification in education: A literature review of current trends and developments. In European conference on technology enhanced learning (EC-TEL) (pp. 294–307). · DOI
  9. Toda, A M, Oliveira, W, Shi, L, Bittencourt, I I, Isotani, S, & Cristea, A. (2019b). Planning gamification strategies based on user characteristics and dm: A gender-based case study. arXiv:1905.09146. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 341

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Oliveira, W., Hamari, J., Shi, L., Toda, A. M., Rodrigues, L., Palomino, P. T., & Isotani, S.
Affiliations
  • Tampere University (FI)
  • Durham University (GB)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
Corresponding author
Oliveira, Wilk
ORCID
Venue
Education and Information Technologies
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-06-29
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
373-406
ISSN
  • 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7608
DOI
10.1007/s10639-022-11122-4
OpenAlex
W4293060971
Cited by
341
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 65 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 5
FWCI
105.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Tampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2020/02801-4, 2018/15917-0)
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
gamification, personalized learning, student motivation, student engagement, flow experience, gamification design, learning performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review