See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/320372825

Gamification and learning performance: A systematic review of the literature

Conference Paper · October 2017

CITATIONS READS

18 5,130

3 authors:

Margarita Ortiz Katherine Chiluiza

Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL) Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL)
20 PUBLICATIONS 363 CITATIONS 55 PUBLICATIONS 682 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Martin Valcke
Ghent University
522 PUBLICATIONS 15,397 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Instructional Design of Mobile Immersive Virtual Reality in education View project

Performance indicators research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Margarita Ortiz on 16 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Gamification and learning performance: A systematic review of the literature
Margarita Ortiz-Rojas1, 2, Katherine Chiluiza2, Martin Valcke1
1
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
2
Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral, ESPOL, Centro de Tecnologías de Información, Guayaquil, Ecuador
[Link]@[Link]/maelorti@[Link]
kchilui@[Link]
[Link]@[Link]

Abstract: Over the last 10 years, research on gamification, the use of game elements in non-game contexts,
has increased in the field of education, due to its potential to enhance learning performance. Yet, the majority
of available research rather focuses on the evaluation of motivation and engagement as key dependent
variables. Hence, the purpose of this study is to review available studies on gamification, with an exclusive
focus on learning performance as the key dependent variable. Through a systematic search and selection
process, building on “Web of Science” articles and by considering studies between 2000 and 2016 related to
gamification and learning, 582 articles were identified. Further inclusion and exclusion criteria, regarding
setting (education), study focus (empirical), journal access (full access) and dependent variables (learning
performance), resulted in a review of 23 articles meeting the criteria. The analysis of these articles showed
how gamification could be linked to a direct increase in learning performance of students. Nevertheless, some
studies also reflect weaker statistical differences between being involved or not in a gamified environment.
The review analysis results are especially helpful to define a future agenda for gamification research,
addressing the following gaps in the literature. First, include mediating and moderating variables to find more
empirical research that can prove an indirect effect of gamification on learning performance. Second, carry out
additional research that empirically underpins the direct linkage between gamification and learning
performance. Third, include specific individual gamification elements to be able to determine explicit
differential effects of these elements on learning performance. Fourth, conduct research in a broader range of
knowledge fields to develop empirical evidence in the context of other knowledge domains next to computer
sciences. Finally, consider involving larger sample and setting up longer experimental interventions, to avoid
novelty effects and risks of lack of generalization.

Keywords: Gamification, review of research, literature review, learning outcomes,

1. Introduction
The ultimate goal of teaching is to foster learning. To achieve this, teachers adopt teaching approaches such
as cooperative learning, problem-based learning, among others, which have been proved to have a positive
effect on learning (Hattie, 2009). Gamification, the use of game elements in non-game contexts, is a relatively
new approach that has shown a potential benefit to learning (Kapp, 2012). Since 2010 when gamification
became well known (Deterding et al, 2011), it has been used for educational purposes, as well as in other
settings such as health and marketing (Seaborn & Fels, 2015). When analysing reviews on how researchers
have studied gamification in education, most studies report a focus on motivation and engagement as key
variables (Nah et al, 2014; Ortiz, Chiluiza & Valcke, 2016). It is striking to observe a lack of studies looking at
the impact on learning. This seems a clear barrier for gamification to be considered as an effective teaching
approach.

Thus, in this study, we present a systematic review of the research literature about gamification on learning
performance with two main goals: a) providing the current state-of-the-art on the topic and b) find gaps in
literature that help developing future research directions. This work is organized as follows: First, related work
about gamification in education is presented; then, a detailed methodology on how this review was carried out
is reported. Next, results and discussion sections are described. Finally, limitations as well as conclusions with
suggested ideas for further research are proposed.

2. Related Work
The current reviews of research on gamification in education range from reporting broad to more specific
results, without focusing exclusively on learning performance. For instance, the review of Hamari, Koivisto &
Sarsa (2014) offers one of the earliest insights about gamification, by reporting that the majority of studies
have been set up in an educational setting. When the reviews become education oriented, they seem to focus
mostly on reporting years of publication, country of origin, educational level, academic subject, game elements
being used and general results (Caponetto, Earp & Ott, 2014; Dicheva et al, 2015). Nah et al (2014) adds an
additional element in a review, by reporting impacts on motivation and engagement. The report of de Sousa et
al (2014) is one of the first presenting an effect on learning performance, but by focusing solely on the number
of studies adopting this approach. Lastly, Surendeleg et al (2014), present a review where some discussion is
carried out regarding the effect on learning performance. It mainly stresses the importance of understanding
to what extent gamification enhances learning. The aforementioned articles provide a first glimpse to
understand how gamification has been used to promote learning. However, the lack of in-depth studies shows
the need to repeat an in-depth literature review focusing on this variable.

3. Methodology
In order to follow a rigorous approach, we used the five-stage framework of Arkey & O’Malley (2005) to set up
our literature review. The framework consists of five stages: 1) identifying research questions; 2) identifying
relevant studies; 3) study selection; 4) charting the data; and 5) collating, summarizing and reporting the
results (this stage will be described in section 4).

3.1 Identifying the research question

Based on our previous work (Ortiz, Chiluiza & Valcke, 2016) the following questions were formulated:
Q1 = Which educational level was mostly involved in the gamification studies?
Q2 = What gamification elements have been studied?
Q3 = Which subjects have been involved in the studies with gamification?
Q4 = How much time were students involved in the gamified experience?
Q5 = What was the sample sized in these studies?
Q6 = What variables, next to learning performance were studied?
Q7 = What have been the research findings of the studies?

3.2 Identifying relevant studies

The selection process was carried out in December 2016. The academic search service Web of Science was
used. The keywords “gamification”, “gamif” along with the words “learning”, “academic” and “achievement”,
were used in the search title, as well as the content fields. Regarding the selection period, it was set from
2000-2016. In terms of language, due to the authors’ language background, Spanish and English studies were
considered.

3.3 Study Selection

The selection process resulted in a dataset of 582 articles. We defined detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria
as reflected in Table 1. This funnel-like filter was based on five criteria: topic, setting, study focus, journal
access, and dependent research variable. If an article fitted the criteria, it was included for the review analysis.
As a result, only 23 articles met all criteria. Figure 1 illustrates the consecutive selection steps in the process
and the articles selected in each step.

Table 1. Inclusion and Exclusion criteria

Criterion Inclusion Exclusion

Topic Gamification as defined by Using gamification to refer to game based learning, serious
Deterding et al(2011) games, games, video games
Setting Education Other settings different from Education (e.g. health, work)
Study Empirical work in a class setting Articles that only mention the design of a gamified class
focus with no empirical work or reviews of literature
Journal Research articles, full access Repeated articles, articles where you have to pay, not
access found, books
Dependent Learning/academic performance Studies that do not include learning performance among
variable Academic achievement their variables (e.g. motivation, engagement)
 Studies identified after
Criteria (Keywords, database search:
Time, Language,) n = 582
Studies excluded by:
Topic: n = 217
Setting: n = 65
Study Focus: n = 111
Journal Access: n = 54
Final studies included in review: Variable = n= 112
n = 23

Figure 1. Article Selection Process

3.4 Charting the Data

The selected studies were further structured following general information (author’s last names, year of
publication and country), as well as the research questions: gamification element, course subject, variables,
length, sample size, educational level and outcome. To develop a concise chart, we coded Educational Level,
meaning Higher Education (HE), High School (HS) and Middle School (MS). We also coded the study results
with three symbols: positive (+), negative (-) and mixed (x). Finally, in terms of length we used the following
codes: week (w) month (m), day (d), semester(s), module (m) year(y) and not mentioned (nm). A detailed
analytical overview of the studies is provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Selected Studies
Authors N Game Course Subject Variables other Length Result
(Country) - Year Element and than Learning
(Educational performance
Level)
de-Marcos, Garcia-Lopez 379 Trophies, Qualification for Educational 10 w x
& Garcia-Cabot badges, ICT Users (HE) game, Social
(Spain) - 2016 challenges, networking,
leaderboards Social
gamification
Draz, Abdennadher & 1078 Challenges, Programming ------- 4m +
Abdelrahman Quests, (HE)
(not mentioned) - 2016 Achievements
Sanmugam et al, 29 Points, Science Form 1 ------- 8w +
(Malaysia) - 2016 badges, (HS)
leaderboards
Buckley & Doyle 100 Ranking, Tax System (HE) Motivation, 3w +
(Ireland) - 2016 Virtual Participation
currency
Papadopoulos, Lagkas, 56 Ranking Network ------- 14 d x
& Demetriadis Planning and
(not mentioned) - 2015 Design(HE)
Hew et al, 64 Points, Badges Designing Cognitive 18 d x
(Honk Kong) - 2016 leaderboard Questionnaire engagement,
(HE) behavioural
engagement
Auvinen, Hakulinen & 469 Badges Data Structures Behavior, goal 1s +
Malmi and Algorithms orientation
(Finland) - 2015 (HE)

Attali & Arieli – Attali 693 Points Math (MS) Effort, likeness, 5d x
(USA) - 2015 points, test
performance(ac
curacy and
speed)
Pedro et al, 16 points, Math (MS) Gender, nm x
(Canada) - 2015 badges, motivation
feedback, and
ranking
Laskowski, 76 Badges, Points Software -------- 2y x
(Poland) - 2015 leaderboards Engineering and
Service-
Oriented
Architecture
(HE)
Kaur & Geetha, 100 levels Computer -------- nm +
(India) - 2015 Programming
(HE)
Paiva et al, 100 XP, badges Math (HS) -------- nm x
(Brazil) - 2015
Hakulinen, Auvinen & 281 badges Data Structures 1s x
Korhonen and Algorithms --------
(Finland) - 2015 (HE)

Sousa-Vieira et al, not Ranking, Computer -------- 14 w +

(Spain) - 2015 stated badges Networks (HE)
Jang, Park & Mun 114 Avatars, Using Adobe Personality, nm +
(South Korea)- 2015 Points, Levels, Photoshop (HE) self-efficacy,
Hearts time pressure

Hanus & Fox 71 Badges Communication Motivation, 16 w -

(USA) - 2015 leaderboards (HE) video game use
Christy & Fox 80 Leaderboards Math (HE) math level nm -
(USA) - 2014

Ibanez, Di-Serio & 22 Leaderboards, Operating Cognitive nm +

Delgado-Kloos Badges, levels Systems (HE) engagement
(Spain) - 2014
De-Marcos et al, 371 Leaderboards Qualification for Social network, 2s x
(Spain) - 2014 trophies Information and Participation
Communication rates
Technologies
(HE)
Dominguez et al, 196 Trophies Qualification for -------- 1s +
(Spain) - 2013 leaderboards users of ICT (HE)
 Caton & Greenhill 136 awards Game attendance 1m +
(UK) - 2013 production (HE)

Barata et al, 77 scoring, levels, Multimedia Attendance, 1s x

(Portugal) - 2013 leaderboards, Content Proactive
challenges, Production (HE) behavior
badges
Hakulinen, Auvinen & 281 Badges Data Structures Time 1s x
Korhonen and Algorithms management,
(Finland) - 2013 (HE) Carefulness

4. Results
4.1 General Information
Results show that studies related to gamification focusing on learning performance were first published in
2013, being 2015 the year with most publications (11), followed by 2016 (5), 2013 (4), 2014 (3). When studies
are clustered based on the continent where they belong, results show that most studies are from Europe (12),
followed by America (5), Asia (4), and (2) not specified. One of the reasons why Europe represents most
articles is linked to the fact that 6 articles resulted from the same group of authors: 3 from Spain and 3 from
Finland.

4.2 Research Questions

4.2.1 RQ1: Which educational level was mostly involved in the gamification studies?
Most research is done in Higher Education (19 articles), followed by High School (2) and Middle School (2).

4.2.2. RQ2: What gamification elements have been studied?

Most studies used a combination of gamification elements (15 articles), followed by articles studying elements
in isolation such as badges (4), leaderboards (2), points (1) and levels (1). The combination of elements usually
comprises points, badges and leaderboards, plus varying elements such as challenges, levels, and avatar,
among others.

4.2.3 RQ3: Which subjects have been involved in the studies with gamification?
The STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) domains account for 19 out of 23 studies.
Other subjects include Communication (1), Financing (1), Use of Photoshop (1) and Designing Questionnaires
(1). Within STEM, most studies are related to Computer Science Engineering (11), followed by Technology (4),
Mathematics (4) and Sciences (1).

4.2.4 RQ4: How much time were students involved in the gamified experience?
Figure 2 summarizes the results. The fact most studies range between two months to one semester, indicates
the desire of researchers to avoid a novelty effect in their results.

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Less than a 2 - 4 months 1 semester Not Stated More than 1
month semester

Figure 2. Time students were involved in a gamified experience

4.2.5 RQ5: What was the sample sized in these studies?

Figure 3 shows that most studies involved 21 to 100 students. It is most likely that studies involve not more
than 100 students due to control issues. In other words, if there are different classes with different teachers, it
is harder to control that teachers carry out all planned activities in the same way.
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
21 - 100 students 101 - 200 students 201 - 300 students 301 or more Not mentioned

Figure 3. Sample Size

4.2.6 RQ6: What variables, next to learning performance were studied?

Motivation and engagement were the additional variables studied the most. Sometimes they were considered
as dependent or mediating variables. Other variables include goal orientation, effort, likeness, gender, time
pressure, personality, attendance and time management. It is interesting to stress that only 9 articles studied
learning performance in isolation without considering additional variables.

4.2.7 RQ7: What have been the results of these studies?

While 9 studies showed a positive impact of gamification on learning performance, 12 studies found no
significant differences and 2 showed negative effects.

5. Discussion
General results of this review show an increase of studies focusing on learning performance, compared to the
findings of an earlier review (De Sousa Borges et al, 2014). In the aforementioned review, 11 articles were
identified between 2011 and 2013; while in this review, already 23 were found from 2013 to 2016. This
increase in focus on assessing learning performance might have being influenced by the 2014 New Media
Consortium Horizon Report, mentioning gamification as a trending topic in Higher Education as well as K-12
education (Johnson et al, 2014a; Johnson et al, 2014b). Thus, it might have created larger awareness as to the
impact of gamification on learning.

Regarding RQ1, it is most likely that Higher Education adopts gamification the most as a way to deal with the
lack of motivation and engagement in students, often resulting in dropout and study failure (Velez, 2014).
Another reason could be related to the use of learning management systems (LMS) in most studies. Since the
latter are mostly used by universities instead of schools, it is more likely that studies will reflect gamification in
higher education. For instance, in the case of USA, 99% of universities use an LMS (Dahlstrom, Brooks &
Bichsel, 2014). In terms of the gamification elements (RQ2), the present study is in line with the earlier review
of Ortiz et al (2016). These authors state that studies hardly focus on specific gamification elements. It is
therefore difficult to know the particular impact of particular gamification elements on learning. Landers
(2014) also share this opinion. About the subjects involved (RQ3), as Dicheva et al, (2015) mentions, it is most
likely that Computer Science related fields adopt gamified innovations the most, because the teachers have
the skills to create and adapt content to a LMS. This stresses the importance of giving technological support to
stakeholders in other areas. The results in relation to RQ4 indicate a clear tendency that researchers want to
avoid a novelty effect by involving their subjects during a longer time in their interventions. Nevertheless, it is
disappointing to discover that – considering the results in relation to question 5 – the number of respondents
involved in the studies remains rather limited. This questions the power of the related statistics. In terms of
RQ6, motivation and engagement seem to be studied the most as additional variables. This is consistent with
other related work (De Sousa et al, 2014). Considering the studies who looked at learning performance as an
isolated variable, The Theory of Gamified Learning proposed by Lander (2014), mentions that gamification
does not have a direct effect on learning, but a mediating or moderating effect should be considered. Yet, we
found 9 articles not including additional variables, 5 of them showing positive results. This shows the need for
future research that centres in more detail in the direct and indirect effects of gamification on learning
performance. Finally, although only 9 studies showed a positive impact, it is still important to analyse why the
14 others showed negative or mixed results. It is likely that there were aspects such as mediating variables,
choice of measurement instrument, sample or study length, which could have affected the results. This
reiterates the importance to consider these aspects when designing gamification empirical studies.

6. Limitations
This study acknowledges the following limitations. First, though the selection process was set up in a rigorous
way, the number of studies remains small. It might be important including a literature search focusing on
additional interdisciplinary databases such as DOAJ or Scopus. Additionally, since not all studies involved
designs with experimental and control groups, a calculation of effect sizes could not be carried out.

7. Conclusions and Directions for Further Research

The main goal of this review was to explore research papers about gamification with a clear focus on effects as
to academic performance. Overall, adding gamification elements shows a promising increase in learning
performance taking into consideration a more controlled design in terms of sample, variables, length, among
others. One main contribution of this review is that research articles already point at positive results, even
when mediating or moderating variable – suggested by Lander’s theory (2014) - are not being considered. The
implications of direct and indirect effects of gamification on learning, call for further research, in order to
empirically underpin these effects in more detail. It is also necessary - as suggested by other reviewers - to
study particular gamification elements in isolation, to be able to determine their differential effects on
learning. Furthermore, the application of gamification in additional knowledge domains would help
consolidate its positive effects in any domain. Finally, including a larger sample size and setting up a longer
intervention study could help avoiding novelty effects and a lack of generalizability.

References

Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). “Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework”. International
Journal of social research methodology, Vol 8, No 1, pp 19-32.
Attali, Y., & Arieli-Attali, M. (2015). “Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test
performance?”. Computers & Education, Vol 83, pp 57-63.
Auvinen, T., Hakulinen, L., & Malmi, L. (2015). “Increasing students’ awareness of their behavior in online
learning environments with visualizations and achievement badges”. IEEE Transactions on Learning
Technologies, Vol 8, No3, pp 261-273.
Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2013). “Engaging engineering students with gamification”.
In 5th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-GAMES), pp 1-8.
Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2016). Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, pp 1-
14.
Caponetto, I., Earp, J., & Ott, M. (2014). “Gamification and education: A literature review”. In ECGBL 2014:
Eighth European Conference on Games Based Learning, pp 50-57.
Caton, H., & Greenhill, D. (2013). “The effects of gamification on student attendance and team performance in
a third-year undergraduate game production module”. In European Conference on Games Based Learning, p
88.
Christy, K. R., & Fox, J. (2014). “Leaderboards in a virtual classroom: A test of stereotype threat and social
comparison explanations for women's math performance”. Computers & Education, Vol 78, pp 66-77.
Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D. C., & Bichsel, J. (2014). The current ecosystem of learning management systems in
higher education: Student, faculty, and IT perspectives, p 3, ECAR, Louisville, CO
De Sousa Borges, S., Durelli, V. H., Reis, H. M., & Isotani, S. (2014). “A systematic mapping on gamification
applied to education”. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp 216-222,
De-Marcos, L., Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., & Pagés, C. (2014). “An empirical study comparing
gamification and social networking on e-learning”. Computers & Education, Vol 75, pp 82-91.
de-Marcos, L., Garcia-Lopez, E., & Garcia-Cabot, A. (2016). “On the effectiveness of game-like and social
approaches in learning: Comparing educational gaming, gamification & social networking”. Computers &
Education, Vol 95, pp 99-113.

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). “From game design elements to gamefulness: defining
gamification”. Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media
environments, pp 9-15.
Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). “Gamification in education: A systematic mapping
study”. Educational Technology & Society, Vol 18, No 3, pp 75-88.
Domínguez, A., Saenz-De-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., FernáNdez-Sanz, L., PagéS, C., & MartíNez-HerráIz, J. J.
(2013). “Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes”. Computers & Education, Vol
63, pp 380-392.
Draz, A., Abdennadher, S., & Abdelrahman, Y. (2016). Kodr: “A Customizable Learning Platform for Computer
Science Education”. European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, pp 579-582.
Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A. (2013). “Empirical study on the effect of achievement badges in
TRAKLA2 online learning environment”. In Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE),
2013, pp 47-54.
Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A. (2015). “The Effect of Achievement Badges on Students' Behavior:
An Empirical Study in a University-Level Computer Science Course”. iJET, Vol 10, No 1, pp 18-29.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). “Does gamification work?--a literature review of empirical studies on
gamification”. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp 3025-3034.
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). “Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on
intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance”. Computers &
Education, Vol 80, pp 152-161.
Hattie, J (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, Routledge,
New York.
Hew, K. F., Huang, B., Chu, K. W. S., & Chiu, D. K. (2016). “Engaging Asian students through game mechanics:
Findings from two experiment studies”. Computers & Education, 92, 221-236.
Ibanez, M. B., Di-Serio, A., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). “Gamification for engaging computer science students
in learning activities: A case study”. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, Vol 7, No 3, pp 291-301.
Jang, J., Park, J. J., & Mun, Y. Y. (2015). “Gamification of Online Learning”. In International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol, 9112, pp. 646-649.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 K-12 Edition,
The New Media Consortium, Austin, Texas
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education
Edition. The New Media Consortium, Austin, Texas.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for
training and education, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco.
Kaur, N., & Geetha, G. (2015). “Play and learn DS: interactive and gameful learning of data
structure”. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, Vol 7, No 1, pp 44-56.
Landers, R. N. (2014). “Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games and gamification of
learning”. Simulation & Gaming, Vol 45, No 6, pp 752-768.
Laskowski, M. (2015). “Implementing gamification techniques into university study path-A case study”. In 2015
IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pp 582-586.
Nah, F. F. H., Zeng, Q., Telaprolu, V. R., Ayyappa, A. P., & Eschenbrenner, B. (2014). “Gamification of education:
a review of literature”. In International Conference on HCI in Business, pp 401-409.
Ortiz, M., Chiluiza, K., & Valcke, M. (2016) “Gamification in higher education and STEM: A systematic review of
Literature”. Proceedings of Edulearn2016: the 8th annual International Conference on Education and New
Learning Technologies, pp 6548-6558.
Paiva, R., Barbosa, A., Batista, E., Pimentel, D., & Bittencourt, I. I. (2015). “Badges and XP: An observational
study about learning”. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2015, pp 1-8.
Papadopoulos, P. M., Lagkas, T., & Demetriadis, S. N. (2015). “How Revealing Rankings Affects Student Attitude
and Performance in a Peer Review Learning Environment”. In International Conference on Computer Supported
Education, pp 225-240.
Pedro, L. Z., Lopes, A. M., Prates, B. G., Vassileva, J., & Isotani, S. (2015). “Does gamification work for boys and
girls?: An exploratory study with a virtual learning environment”. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM
Symposium on Applied Computing, pp 214-219.
 Sanmugam, M., Abdullah, Z., Mohamed, H., Aris, B., Zaid, N. M., & Suhadi, S. M. (2016). “The affiliation
between student achievement and elements of gamification in learning science”. 4th International Conference
on Information and Communication Technology (ICoICT), 2016, pp 1-4.

Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). “Gamification in theory and action: A survey”. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, Vol 74, pp 14-31.
Sousa-Vieira, M. E., López-Ardao, J. C., Fernández-Veiga, M., Rodríguez-Pérez, M., & López-García, C. (2015).
“Using Social Learning Methodologies in Higher Education”. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, Vol
5, No 2, pp 64 - 72.
Surendeleg, G., Murwa, V., Yun, H. K., & Kim, Y. S. (2014). “The role of gamification in education a literature
review”. Contemporary Engineering Sciences, Vol 7, No 2932, pp 1609-1616.
Velez, E. D. (2014). America’s College Drop-Out Epidemic: Understanding the College Drop-Out
Population. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research Working Paper, American
Institutes for Research Washington, DC

View publication stats