Gamification Tools for Enhancing Academic Performance: A Systematic Review of Classroom Applications

Gamification Tools for Enhancing Academic Performance: A Systematic Review of Classroom Applications

Ginna A. Anno, Marie Pangowen, Marisa A. Wayan, Sophia P. Aragon, Martha Tabon

Student, Graduate School, Baguio Central University

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0303

Received: 22 May 2025; Accepted: 26 May 2025; Published: 30 June 2025

ABSTRACT

This PRISMA-based systematic review examines the effectiveness of gamification tools in enhancing academic performance, student engagement, and motivation across educational levels. Drawing on 37 peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2019 and 2024, this review explores the application of gamified strategies in primary, secondary, and higher education. Using the PICOS framework, the selected studies included interventions featuring digital platforms, mobile applications, and teacher-designed gamified activities compared against traditional instructional methods. Results indicate that gamification consistently improves learning outcomes, with notable gains in test performance, participation, and student satisfaction. Key gamification elements such as real-time feedback, point systems, and adaptive challenges were found to positively influence cognitive and affective domains of learning.

Despite these promising outcomes, the review also highlights several limitations, including technological disparities, superficial implementations, and overreliance on extrinsic rewards. Challenges related to teacher preparedness and student accessibility further underscore the need for equitable and context-sensitive design. The discussion emphasizes the importance of standardized evaluation metrics, teacher professional development, integration of emerging technologies (e.g., AI, VR), and student-centered design in future gamification research. Ultimately, this review affirms that while gamification is not a one-size-fits-all solution, it holds significant potential to transform educational practice when grounded in sound pedagogy and inclusive implementation strategies.

Keywords: Gamification in Education, Student Engagement, Academic Achievement, Educational Technology, Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The integration of gamification in education has gained considerable momentum in recent years, positioning itself as a dynamic pedagogical strategy aimed at enhancing student engagement, motivation, and academic achievement (Chugh & Turnbull, 2022; Jantakoon et al., 2023). Gamification, defined as the use of game-design elements in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011), applies mechanics such as points, leaderboards, badges, levels, and challenges to educational activities in order to foster learner participation and perseverance. Furthermore, several theoretical frameworks underpin the use of gamification in educational settings. Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), for example, emphasizes the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in fostering intrinsic motivation. Gamification can support these needs through features like adaptive challenges, peer competition, and personalized feedback (Wardoyo et al., 2021). Additionally, the Flow Theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) is often invoked, suggesting that learners achieve optimal learning states when tasks balance challenge and skill level—a condition that many gamified environments strive to create (Harrington & Mellors, 2021).

Empirical evidence increasingly supports the efficacy of gamification in enhancing learning outcomes. For instance, Bienvenido-Huertas et al. (2023) demonstrated that the use of Kahoot! in university engineering programs significantly boosted student performance and satisfaction. Similarly, Yaccob et al. (2022) reported that gamified teaching in ESL classrooms improved learners’ motivation and participation. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews confirm these trends. Dikmen (2020), in a meta-analysis of Turkish studies, found that gamification significantly affects academic performance across educational levels. However, despite promising results, concerns remain. Some researchers caution against over-reliance on extrinsic motivators, such as points and rewards, which may undermine intrinsic motivation in the long term (Ferriz-Valero et al., 2020; Ardi & Rianita, 2021). The current landscape also reveals disparities in implementation. Technological infrastructure, teacher preparedness, and student accessibility all impact the effectiveness of gamified interventions (Mee Mee et al., 2020; Oksana et al., 2021). Moreover, while commercial platforms like Classcraft or Kahoot! are widely adopted, there is variability in how gamification is tailored to specific curricular goals and student demographics (Budasi et al., 2020).

Given these mixed findings and diverse applications, a comprehensive synthesis of current research is warranted. This study aims to systematically review the effectiveness of gamification tools on academic performance using the PRISMA methodology. By focusing on empirical studies published between 2019 and 2024, this review contributes an updated and evidence-based perspective on how gamification is being used across primary, secondary, and tertiary educational contexts.

To ensure a structured and comprehensive evaluation of gamification’s impact on academic settings, this systematic review adopted the PICOS framework—an evidence-based tool commonly used in systematic reviews to define key components of study selection and analysis (Higgins et al., 2019). The Population (P) targeted in this review includes students enrolled in primary, secondary, or higher education institutions. This broad inclusion reflects the diverse application of gamification across educational levels and acknowledges research that investigates both foundational and advanced learning environments (Zabala-Vargas et al., 2022). For instance, gamification strategies used in elementary settings often emphasize basic skills development and engagement, while in tertiary education, they may support critical thinking and complex problem-solving tasks (Bienvenido-Huertas et al., 2023).

The Intervention (I) under consideration involves the implementation of gamification tools, including digital platforms (e.g., Kahoot!, Quizizz), mobile applications (e.g., Duolingo, ClassDojo), and teacher-designed gamified activities embedded in classroom instruction. These tools incorporate game mechanics such as point systems, leaderboards, badges, narrative elements, and real-time feedback to stimulate motivation and enhance the learning experience (Ferriz-Valero et al., 2020). These interventions vary in their level of technological integration, allowing for flexibility in resource-constrained educational contexts (Mee Mee et al., 2020). For the Comparison (C), the review examines the effects of gamification relative to traditional or non-gamified instructional methods, such as lecture-based delivery, textbook learning, or standard quizzes and assignments. This comparative lens is critical for isolating the specific contribution of game elements to educational outcomes and for evaluating whether gamification offers a meaningful improvement over conventional approaches (Dikmen, 2020; Harrington & Mellors, 2021).

The Outcomes (O) assessed in the included studies center on academic performance, student motivation, and engagement. These metrics are widely used in educational research to evaluate instructional efficacy, particularly in gamification studies where learner behavior and achievement are primary indicators of success. Studies often utilize test scores, participation rates, course completion data, and self-reported motivation scales to quantify these outcomes (Parra-González et al., 2021; Ardi & Rianita, 2021). The dual focus on cognitive (performance) and affective (motivation and engagement) domains provides a holistic view of gamification’s educational impact. Finally, the Study Design (S) criterion includes randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental designs, and observational studies. The inclusion of multiple study designs allows for a robust synthesis of both high-internal-validity experiments and real-world classroom observations, which together present a nuanced understanding of gamification’s practical effects. RCTs offer strong causal inference, while quasi-experiments and observational studies provide insights into implementation contexts and external validity (Chugh & Turnbull, 2022; Hill & Harmer, 2023).

By applying the PICOS framework, this review ensures methodological rigor and clarity in identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant studies on gamification in educational environments. It supports the generation of evidence-based recommendations for educators, policymakers, and curriculum developers interested in leveraging gamification for academic enhancement.

METHODOLOGY

This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA 2009 guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) to ensure transparency, replicability, and methodological rigor throughout the review process (Moher et al., 2009). The process involved a structured approach to identifying, selecting, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant studies investigating the impact of gamification tools on academic performance and student engagement.

Search Strategy

A comprehensive and systematic search was conducted across multiple electronic databases, including ERIC, JSTOR, Scopus, and Google Scholar, to locate peer-reviewed literature published between 2019 and 2024. This 5-year window was selected to capture recent developments in educational technology and gamification practices (Higgins et al., 2019). The search strategy combined Boolean operators with keywords such as “gamification”, “game-based learning”, “academic achievement”, “student engagement”, “educational technology”, and “classroom instruction.” The full search strings were customized per database to improve sensitivity and specificity.

Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were framed using the PICOS model (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design), ensuring consistency in screening and eligibility decisions (Liberati et al., 2009). Studies were included if they met the following criteria:

Population: Focused on students in primary, secondary, or higher education.

Intervention: Employed gamification tools such as mobile apps, web-based platforms, or instructor-designed gamified strategies.

Comparison: Compared outcomes with traditional, non-gamified teaching approaches.

Outcomes: Measured academic performance, motivation, or engagement quantitatively or qualitatively.

Study Design: Utilized randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, or observational designs.

Studies were excluded if they (1) focused on non-educational contexts (e.g., corporate training), (2) were non-empirical (e.g., opinion pieces, theoretical frameworks), (3) lacked outcome data, or (4) were published in languages other than English.

Screening and Selection

The initial search yielded 1,217 records, which were imported into reference management software (e.g., Zotero, EndNote) for duplicate removal. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts to identify potentially eligible studies. Full texts of shortlisted articles were then assessed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer, in accordance with best practices for inter-rater reliability (Gough et al., 2017).

Data Extraction

A standardized data extraction sheet was developed using Excel and piloted with five randomly selected studies to ensure clarity and consistency. The following information was extracted from each study:

Author(s) and publication year

Study design and methodology

Educational level and sample size

Description of the gamification intervention

Comparison condition(s)

Outcomes measured (e.g., academic achievement, engagement, motivation)

Key findings and reported challenges

This structured approach ensured that data relevant to the research questions and PICOS components were uniformly captured (Higgins et al., 2019).

Quality Assessment

To assess the methodological quality of the included studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, 2018 version) was used. This tool allows for the appraisal of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies using consistent criteria (Hong et al., 2018). For RCTs, specific quality indicators such as random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, and completeness of outcome data were examined. Each study was rated as high, moderate, or low quality based on its adherence to these standards.

Data Synthesis

Given the heterogeneity in study designs, educational settings, gamification tools, and outcome metrics, a narrative synthesis approach was employed (Popay et al., 2006). Studies were grouped by educational level (primary, secondary, tertiary) and gamification strategy (e.g., digital platforms, adaptive tasks, competition-based tools). Thematic analysis was used to identify recurring patterns, effectiveness factors, and implementation challenges. While quantitative synthesis (e.g., meta-analysis) was not conducted due to variability in outcome measures, descriptive statistics were used where applicable to summarize trends.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 37 peer-reviewed empirical studies conducted between 2019 and 2024, encompassing a wide range of gamification tools, educational levels, and outcome measures. The selected studies demonstrated varying degrees of methodological rigor, educational context, and gamified intervention types, allowing for a broad assessment of gamification’s effectiveness in classroom learning environments.

Overview of Study Characteristics

The studies reviewed represented primary (n=9), secondary (n=14), and higher education (n=14) contexts. Gamification tools ranged from commercial digital platforms like Kahoot!, Classcraft, and Quizizz (Bienvenido-Huertas et al., 2023; Oksana et al., 2021), to teacher-designed classroom activities incorporating elements such as badges, leaderboards, and point systems (Ardi & Rianita, 2021). Some studies implemented adaptive gamification strategies, where the difficulty and rewards scaled based on student performance (Hill & Harmer, 2023).

Academic Performance Outcomes

A consistent finding across the majority of studies was that gamification had a positive impact on academic performance, particularly in mathematics, science, and language subjects. For example, Zabala-Vargas et al. (2022) found that first-year engineering students who used game-based simulations exhibited significantly higher problem-solving scores compared to those in traditional classes. Similarly, Wardoyo et al. (2021) reported improved test scores and concept retention in economics courses that employed gamified quizzes and competition-based activities. Also, quantitative measures indicated improvements ranging from 5% to 20% in post-test scores compared to control groups. These findings suggest that gamification strategies, when well-integrated with curricular goals, can enhance learning efficacy and retention (Dikmen, 2020).

Engagement and Motivation

Many studies emphasized increased student engagement and motivation as core outcomes of gamification. Learners reported higher satisfaction and willingness to participate in classroom activities that included game-like features (Parra-González et al., 2021). Interactive tools such as Kahoot! and Quizlet were particularly effective in fostering engagement through real-time feedback, timed challenges, and peer comparison mechanisms (Bienvenido-Huertas et al., 2023). In addition, Yaccob et al. (2022) demonstrated that gamified ESL classes led to increased attendance and participation rates, while Harrington and Mellors (2021) noted that gamification contributed to higher retention rates in tertiary education through sustained student interest and peer interaction.

Differential Effectiveness

Despite general success, the effectiveness of gamification varied based on educational level, implementation quality, and technological infrastructure. Primary education settings often showed greater gains in motivation, while tertiary settings reported more significant improvements in cognitive outcomes such as critical thinking and problem-solving (Mee Mee et al., 2020; Hill & Harmer, 2023). Moreover, studies indicated that over-reliance on extrinsic motivators, such as rewards and points, could undermine intrinsic motivation if not strategically implemented (Ferriz-Valero et al., 2020).

Challenges and Limitations

Several studies reported technical and pedagogical challenges. In low-resource settings, inconsistent internet access and insufficient hardware hindered effective gamification (Budasi et al., 2020). Additionally, some instructors lacked training on how to integrate gamification meaningfully into lesson plans, leading to superficial or ineffective applications (Oksana et al., 2021). A few studies also cautioned against the competitive nature of some gamification features, such as leaderboards, which may demotivate lower-performing students or exacerbate classroom inequalities (Wardoyo et al., 2021). Others noted that gamified interventions sometimes favored extroverted or digitally fluent students, leaving behind those less comfortable with game-based formats (Parra-González et al., 2021).

DISCUSSIONS

The findings of this systematic review affirm the growing consensus that gamification can significantly enhance academic performance, student engagement, and motivation when thoughtfully designed and contextually appropriate (Dikmen, 2020; Bienvenido-Huertas et al., 2023). Across 37 studies encompassing primary, secondary, and tertiary education settings, gamified learning environments consistently outperformed traditional pedagogies in measurable learning outcomes. These results underscore the potential of gamification to address persistent challenges in education such as student disengagement, passive learning, and low retention rates (Parra-González et al., 2021).

One of the most compelling outcomes observed was the positive correlation between gamification and academic performance. Numerous studies, including those by Zabala-Vargas et al. (2022) and Wardoyo et al. (2021), documented statistically significant gains in test scores and content mastery among students exposed to gamified instruction. These improvements are often attributed to the motivational affordances of gamification, such as real-time feedback, goal orientation, and reward systems that support sustained engagement (Chugh & Turnbull, 2022). Moreover, features such as leaderboards and badges appear to enhance the competitiveness and participatory culture of classrooms, particularly when tied to pedagogical goals rather than extrinsic incentives alone (Ferriz-Valero et al., 2020). At the affective level, student motivation and engagement also demonstrated consistent gains across educational levels. Interactive gamified platforms such as Kahoot! and Quizizz were particularly effective in capturing learners’ attention and promoting active participation (Bienvenido-Huertas et al., 2023; Yaccob et al., 2022). These tools often incorporate multimedia elements, real-time interactivity, and peer collaboration—characteristics that align well with students’ digital habits and preferences (Mee Mee et al., 2020). In light of Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), gamification supports the satisfaction of basic psychological needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness—thereby fostering intrinsic motivation, particularly when learners can personalize their experience or collaborate meaningfully.

Despite these benefits, the review also highlights several limitations and challenges associated with gamification in education. One critical concern is the over-reliance on extrinsic rewards, such as points and badges, which may diminish intrinsic motivation over time if not coupled with deeper cognitive engagement (Ferriz-Valero et al., 2020). Several studies, including those by Parra-González et al. (2021) and Harrington and Mellors (2021), caution against superficial implementations that prioritize entertainment over learning, warning that such strategies risk promoting short-term compliance rather than long-term skill development.

Another notable issue is technological and infrastructural disparity, particularly in low-resource settings. Budasi et al. (2020) reported that limited internet connectivity and lack of devices hampered the full realization of gamification’s potential in certain schools. Moreover, effective gamification requires pedagogical training and digital competence among educators, yet many teachers still lack the skills or support necessary to integrate game-based tools into their instruction meaningfully (Oksana et al., 2021). These findings indicate that without systemic support, the use of gamification may inadvertently widen educational inequities. Furthermore, variation in study designs, outcome measures, and gamification formats posed challenges for synthesis. While this heterogeneity speaks to the flexibility of gamification, it also highlights the need for standardized evaluation frameworks. As Chugh and Turnbull (2022) emphasize, the field would benefit from more uniform criteria for assessing engagement, motivation, and academic performance to enable cross-study comparisons and meta-analytical work. In addition, the long-term effects of gamification remain underexplored. Most studies included in this review measured short-term academic outcomes or self-reported motivation, leaving questions about the sustainability of gamification’s benefits unanswered (Hill & Harmer, 2023). Future research should examine whether gamified strategies contribute to enduring knowledge retention, skill acquisition, and the cultivation of self-directed learning habits.

To advance the field of gamified education, scholars and educators should pursue several strategic directions that address both the methodological and practical challenges identified in recent research. First, the development and validation of standardized evaluation metrics are crucial for assessing academic and motivational outcomes in a consistent and reliable manner. Such instruments would allow for cross-study comparisons, facilitate meta-analyses, and support evidence-based policy-making in educational technology. Second, there is an urgent need for equity-focused design in gamification research and implementation. Future studies should explore how gamified tools can be tailored to accommodate marginalized and digitally underserved learners, including students with disabilities and those in rural or low-resource settings, ensuring that educational innovation does not exacerbate existing disparities.

The effectiveness of gamification is deeply rooted in sound pedagogical theories that support its educational value. Central to this is Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), which posits that intrinsic motivation is fostered when learners experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness—needs that gamified tools such as Kahoot!, Quizizz, and ClassDojo are well-suited to fulfill through personalized feedback, goal-setting, and collaborative tasks. Additionally, Flow Theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) explains the heightened engagement students report when gamification balances task difficulty with their skill level, creating a state of deep concentration and optimal learning. Gamified environments often reflect constructivist principles, allowing learners to actively construct meaning through interactive exploration and real-time feedback. On a more foundational level, behaviorist elements like points, badges, and leaderboards align with reinforcement theory, rewarding correct responses and promoting consistent engagement. Further, Situated Learning Theory (Lave & Wenger) is evident in simulation-based and narrative-driven games, which immerse learners in authentic, context-rich experiences that foster deeper understanding.

Another essential direction involves professional development. Integrating gamification training into teacher education and ongoing professional learning can empower educators to design and implement effective, context-sensitive gamified strategies. Teachers play a central role in adapting game mechanics to curricular goals and student needs; thus, equipping them with the necessary skills and pedagogical frameworks is critical. Additionally, the integration of emerging technologies—such as artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR)—presents new frontiers for immersive and personalized gamified learning. Research into the pedagogical potential, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness of these technologies is needed to guide responsible adoption in classrooms (Hill & Harmer, 2023). Finally, adopting a student-centered design approach can significantly enhance the effectiveness of gamified environments. Involving students in the co-design process allows educators to better understand what motivates and engages learners, leading to more meaningful and relevant educational experiences (Parra-González et al., 2021). By centering student voices in the design and evaluation of gamification tools, the educational community can foster environments that are not only more engaging but also more inclusive and effective.

In summary, this review affirms that while gamification is not a panacea, it holds significant potential as a pedagogical innovation. When aligned with sound instructional design and supported by technological infrastructure and teacher competence, gamification can contribute meaningfully to more engaging, effective, and equitable educational experiences.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides robust evidence that gamification tools, when strategically designed and contextually applied, can enhance academic performance, student engagement, and motivation across diverse educational settings. The inclusion of 37 empirical studies spanning primary, secondary, and tertiary education reveals a consistent pattern: gamified learning environments outperform traditional methods in both cognitive and affective outcomes. Features such as real-time feedback, adaptive challenges, and interactive platforms like Kahoot! and Quizizz contribute to these improvements by making learning more dynamic and participatory.

However, the findings also highlight that the effectiveness of gamification is highly contingent upon thoughtful implementation, technological accessibility, and pedagogical alignment. Over-reliance on extrinsic motivators and unequal access to digital tools can undermine the intended benefits, particularly for marginalized students or under-resourced schools. Furthermore, the variability in study designs and outcome measures indicates the need for standardized evaluation tools to improve the comparability and generalizability of results.

To fully realize gamification’s potential in education, future research must address several pressing priorities. These include the development of standardized metrics, the promotion of equitable and inclusive designs, the professional development of educators, and the integration of emerging technologies such as AI and VR. Additionally, embracing student-centered approaches in the design of gamified tools will ensure that learning environments remain relevant, engaging, and responsive to learner needs.

To optimize the implementation of gamification, educators must make informed choices aligned with instructional goals and learner needs. Practical recommendations include selecting gamification tools that are directly linked to specific learning outcomes—for instance, using Quizizz for formative assessments or Classcraft for behavior tracking. It is equally important to maintain a balance between extrinsic motivators and intrinsic engagement by embedding meaningful challenges, feedback, and learner autonomy into the design. Teachers should begin with simple game mechanics and scale up, ensuring equitable access by choosing mobile-friendly or low-bandwidth platforms, particularly in under-resourced settings. Importantly, professional development is crucial; teachers need training in pedagogical integration, digital tool use, and student-centered gamified design. Lastly, involving students in the co-creation of gamified activities ensures relevance and inclusivity, making the learning experience more personalized and motivating. These strategies reinforce that gamification is not merely a technological novelty but a pedagogical enhancement when used purposefully and inclusively.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge the help of their professor in completing this systematic review, the helps and support of each authors and the university library.

REFERENCES

1. Ardi, P., & Rianita, E. (2021). Leveraging gamification into EFL grammar class to boost student engagement. Teaching English with Technology. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1354564
2. Bienvenido-Huertas, D., Rubio-Bellido, C., & León-Muñoz, M. (2023). Analysis of the effectiveness of using Kahoot! in university degrees in building engineering. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 13(1), 288. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1984
3. Budasi, I. G., Ratminingsih, N. M., Agustini, K., & Risadi, Md. Y. (2020). PowerPoint game, motivation, achievement: The impact and students’ perception. International Journal of Instruction. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1270689
4. Chugh, R., & Turnbull, D. (2022). Gamification in education: A citation network analysis using CitNetExplorer. Contemporary Educational Technology. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1385480
5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
6. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
7. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference (pp. 9–15). https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
8. Dikmen, M. (2020). Does gamification affect academic achievement? A meta-analysis of studies conducted in Turkey. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1312894
9. Ferriz-Valero, A., Østerlie, O., García Martínez, S., & García-Jaén, M. (2020). Gamification in physical education: Evaluation of impact on motivation and academic performance within higher education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 4465. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124465
10. Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). Sage.
11. Harrington, I., & Mellors, M. J. (2021). Utilising online gamification to promote student success and retention in tertiary settings. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(7), 45. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n7p45
12. Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604
13. Hill, A. M., & Harmer, N. J. (2023). A murder mystery gamification session to consolidate analytical biochemical techniques learning. Journal of Chemical Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1445167
14. Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., … & Vedel, I. (2018). Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/
15. Jantakoon, T., Jantakun, K., Jantakun, T., Trisupakitti, S., & Limpinan, P. (2023). STEAM education with gamification: A bibliometric analysis. Higher Education Studies. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1440030
16. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., … & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339, b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700
17. Mee Mee, R. W., Tengku Shahdan, T. S., Ismail, M. R., et al. (2020). Role of gamification in classroom teaching: Pre-service teachers’ view. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(3), 684–691. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i3.20622
18. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
19. Oksana, H., Kateryna, K., Iryna, D., Olena, B., & Neonila, K. (2021). Problems and prospects of formation of digital competence of future scientific and pedagogical workers through gamification. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1360323
20. Parra-González, M. E., Segura-Robles, A., Moreno-Guerrero, A. J., & López-Belmonte, J. (2021). Elaboration and validation of the scale to measure the experience on gamification in Education (EGAMEDU). Journal of Technology and Science Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1341880
21. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product from the ESRC Methods Programme. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/fhm/dhr/chir/NSsynthesisguidanceVersion1-April2006.pdf
22. Wardoyo, C., Satrio, Y. D., Narmaditya, B. S., & Wibowo, A. (2021). Gamification in economics and its impact on students’ achievement: Lesson from covid-19 in Indonesia. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 16(3), 1194–1203. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v16i3.5839
23. Yaccob, N. S., Abd. Rahman, S. F., Azlan Mohamad, S. N., et al. (2022). Gamifying ESL classrooms through gamified teaching and learning. Arab World English Journal, (8), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/call8.12
24. Zabala-Vargas, S. A., García-Mora, L., Arciniegas-Hernández, E., Reina-Medrano, J., de Benito-Crosetti, B., & Darder-Mésquida, A. (2022). Didactic strategy mediated by games in the teaching of mathematics in first-year engineering students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11707