View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Gamified Learning Impact: A Meta-Analysis of Game Element Combinations on Students' Learning Outcomes

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Gamified Learning Impact: A Meta-Analysis of Game Element Combinations on Students' Learning Outcomes
Language: English
Authors: Wei-Ang Dai, Wei Xu (ORCID 0000-0002-9042-213X), Qian-Wen Xing
Source: Educational Technology Research and Development. 2025 73(4):2617-2643.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Descriptors: Gamification, Game Based Learning, Program Effectiveness, Design, Incidence
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-025-10493-y
ISSN: 1042-1629
1556-6501
Abstract: In educational settings, gamified learning integrates a variety of game elements to improve the learning experience, but a thorough analysis comparing different combinations of these elements is sparse. This meta-analysis consolidated data from 182 effect sizes across 37 randomized or quasi-randomized trials to assess the impact of gamified learning on student outcomes. Statistical analyses were conducted with gamified learning as the independent variable, learning outcomes as the dependent variable, and learning domain, learning stage, and intervention duration as moderating variables. The study aimed to evaluate the overall effect of gamified learning and to determine the most effective combinations of game elements. The results revealed a medium positive effect of gamified learning on learning outcomes (d = 0.566), with the "Rules/Goals + Challenge + Mystery" combination yielding the highest impact. And significant moderation was observed regarding the learning domain and the duration of the intervention. These findings offer valuable guidance for the design and application of gamified learning strategies, highlighting the need to consider moderating factors in educational practice.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1483889
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFZumVkcUudW_RO2elPeRrPAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOwj125JlYa5ISGBZwIBEICBm03zpkbCeWmZRh3ITZGZ7Y_Mr0QBpplHPQ0ttHdzKLZD93qCjRouGWa82gATzTwiv3yuSPwFaqmBW_9vVz06wLPsl6Q6hVOvxPrp9tlC7d4p8VM6R30ALq9G8QjWu7GWCD-NHG9J8PfmvxtY4EfJYHQmJP2Gcd8Mn1QHfkV8VgowQTn3fa-AGKQhipQ7UZUHDO9w3Vtq--x_cgC2
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0188049013;etr01aug.25;2025Sep22.01:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188049013-1">Gamified learning impact: a meta-analysis of game element combinations on students' learning outcomes </title> <p>In educational settings, gamified learning integrates a variety of game elements to improve the learning experience, but a thorough analysis comparing different combinations of these elements is sparse. This meta-analysis consolidated data from 182 effect sizes across 37 randomized or quasi-randomized trials to assess the impact of gamified learning on student outcomes. Statistical analyses were conducted with gamified learning as the independent variable, learning outcomes as the dependent variable, and learning domain, learning stage, and intervention duration as moderating variables. The study aimed to evaluate the overall effect of gamified learning and to determine the most effective combinations of game elements. The results revealed a medium positive effect of gamified learning on learning outcomes (d = 0.566), with the "Rules/Goals + Challenge + Mystery" combination yielding the highest impact. And significant moderation was observed regarding the learning domain and the duration of the intervention. These findings offer valuable guidance for the design and application of gamified learning strategies, highlighting the need to consider moderating factors in educational practice.</p> <p>Keywords: Gamified learning; Game elements; Meta-analysis; Learning outcomes; Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Gamification, a term presented by Nick Pelling in 2002 (Pelling, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref1">64</reflink>]). It refers to the use of game elements in non-game environments or systems to enhance user engagement and experience (Deterding et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref2">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref3">25</reflink>]; Deterding et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref4">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref5">25</reflink>]; Werbach & Hunter, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref6">84</reflink>]). Today, gamification has become a popular technique widely applied in various fields, including education, industry, business, environment, and marketing (Hanus & Fox, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref7">38</reflink>]; Landers, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref8">51</reflink>]). In educational, gamification is referred to as gamified learning. It is important to note that although various terms such as serious games and educational games are similar to gamification, they are applied differently. The term "serious games" can be defined as the use of digital games for different purposes, including educational purposes (Dehghanzadeh et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref9">23</reflink>]). "Educational games" are a form of digital games designed specifically for educational purposes (Lamb et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref10">50</reflink>]). The focus of all these terms is on digital games. Instead, gamified learning involves incorporating game features and elements into an existing process such as a curriculum, instructional project, or learning task to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes (Landers, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref11">51</reflink>]). Recent research and practice in gamification within the educational field have indicated that gamified learning has a more positive impact compared to traditional learning methods (Karagiorgas & Niemann, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref12">45</reflink>]; Manzano-León et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref13">57</reflink>]). So, it has garnered significant attention from researchers in recent years (Bencsik et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref15">53</reflink>]). Furthermore, the implementation process of gamification is relatively simpler compared to designing and developing a complete educational game. So it has further motivated researchers to explore this field more actively and extensively (Wang & Lieberoth, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref16">83</reflink>]).</p> <p>Game elements, which refer to all the functions and mechanisms commonly found in games (Deterding et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref17">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref18">25</reflink>]). There are 39 game elements that can be integrated into gamified learning such as badges, leaderboards, points, levels, reward and so on (Garris & Ahlers, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref19">34</reflink>]). As we know, the educational process is characterized by students with different characteristics, needs and learning methods, so each game element and each combination of game elements affects each student differently. Taking into account the diversity of educational environments as well as different learning areas and learning durations, the process of applying gamification becomes more and more complex (Duggal et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref20">29</reflink>]). Numerous studies have been conducted to confirm the importance of using a combination of game elements in teaching and learning (Alsawaier, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref21">4</reflink>]; Yildirim, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref22">89</reflink>]). However, most researchers in the current study chose to incorporate a single game element into their instruction (Kyewski & Krämer, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref23">49</reflink>]; Philpott & Son, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref24">66</reflink>]; Sitra et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref25">75</reflink>]). The drawback of this phenomenon was that we were unable to determine exactly which combinations of elements had an impact on learning outcomes. In recent years, some researchers have proposed combining multiple game elements for exploration (Kabilan et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref26">44</reflink>]). As a result, some researchers have begun to examine the impact of multiple game elements in instructional contexts. However, the 39 individual elements and their combination methods are complex and diverse. And, there is currently no comprehensive evidence to prove which individual element or combination of elements can produce better learning outcomes when introduced into instruction.</p> <p>To more clearly link different game elements with learning outcomes and guide practice, we can classify numerous game elements into appropriate categories based on their attributes (Bedwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref27">8</reflink>]; Garris et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref28">35</reflink>]). Over the years, researchers have made many efforts to classify and define the dimensions of game elements. For example, De Felix and Johnston ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref29">21</reflink>]) considered dynamic visuals, interaction, rules, and goals to be the basic features of games. Gredler ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref30">36</reflink>]) believed that the basic elements of games can be divided from the perspective of learners into complex task, the learner's role, multiple paths to the goal, and learner control. In 2002, after reviewing various literature on game element classification and game feature summarization, Garris et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref31">35</reflink>]) proposed that all game elements and features can be described using six dimensions: fantasy, rules/goals, sensory stimuli, challenge, mystery, and control. Since De Felix and Johnston focused more on the dynamic visuals and interactivity of the game, and Gredler focused more on the learner's perspective, and with Garris's categorization, educators can better understand the personality types and traits that correspond to the different player types, as well as the game elements and game mechanics that may be appealing to them, and thus design a more personalized gamified learning activity. Compared to other forms of categorization, Garris's model provided a more comprehensive perspective to analyze the educational potential and entertainment value of games. Thus, this article will also explore the impact of different game elements dimensions or their combinations on learning outcomes based on this classification.</p> <p>On the other hand, in previous meta-analysis articles related to gamification, they generally tended to focus more on the influence of learner characteristics, motivation types, and relevant learning theories on gamification strategies, so we do not know whether there are boundary conditions for the impact of gamified learning on student learning outcomes. In which subject fields is gamified learning more effective? Which stage of student learning is gamified learning more effective for? How long does gamified learning need to take to produce better effects? These questions require comprehensive evidence to better guide future research and instructional practices. Therefore, this study hopes to synthesize the results of existing studies, reveal the consistency and differences between different studies, and provide clearer guidance for educational practitioners and researchers.</p> <p>Based on the aforementioned discussion, this study conducted a meta-analysis of a sample of 37 studies on gamified learning during the period 2013–2023. The aim is to answer the following three research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ1: What is the impact of gamified learning on learners' learning outcomes?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ2: Which combination of game elements has the greatest impact on learners' learning outcomes?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ3: How do factors such as the learning domain, learning stage, and intervention duration moderate the impact of gamified learning on learning outcomes?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188049013-3">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188049013-4">Inclusion and exclusion criteria</hd> <p>Based on the research objectives, this meta-analysis included articles published after 2013. The specific inclusion criteria were as follows: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>) Publication time: Articles published between January 1, 2013 and July 1, 2023; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>) Study design: Studies must have employed a randomized or quasi-randomized experimental design and reported sample sizes; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>) Intervention: The study must have used gamified learning as the intervention variable and reported the specific game elements integrated into the learning process; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>) Participants: The study must have been conducted with students from regular schools, including elementary, middle, and undergraduate levels; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref36">5</reflink>) Language: The study must have had an English version available or provided partial English translations with clear descriptions of methods and results; (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref37">6</reflink>) Data: The literature must have reported student learning outcome data following the gamified learning intervention. Furthermore, the exclusion criteria were as follows: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>) Interventions where the gamified learning experimental group and non-gamified learning control group had interventions conducted in different years; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref39">2</reflink>) The intervention variable was educational games; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>) The literature did not report data that could support the calculation of effect sizes.</p> <p>These criteria were applied to ensure the selection of relevant studies that met the research objectives and maintained methodological rigor in the inclusion process. The adherence to these criteria enhances the validity and reliability of the findings in this meta-analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-5">Data sources and search strategies</hd> <p>Following the aforementioned inclusion and exclusion criteria and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline, publications were selected through the following steps. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flowchart depicting the search, identification, screening, and selection process. The search process for this study was conducted using the Web of Science database. Regarding the keywords in terms of learning affective, this study conducted a search based on Pekrun's categorization of learning emotions (Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref41">63</reflink>]). In addition, due to the importance and wide application of the theory of flow in gamified learning (Oliveira et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref42">62</reflink>]; Perttula et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref43">65</reflink>]), we also used "flow" as one of the keywords. Furthermore, since gamification involved synonyms, this study used a systematic search strategy based on a set of keywords that overlapped in the research questions: In the first step, synonyms or related keywords for each set using Merriam-Webster's Online Thesaurus. In the second step, the overlapped sets were combined with the Boolean operator "AND" and the related asterisks marked keywords within each set with "OR" to arrive at the final search string: ("gamif*" OR "game-based") AND ("achievement" OR "attitude" OR "flow" OR "engagement" OR "performance" OR "effect" OR "outcome" OR "skill" OR "anxiety" OR "enjoyment" OR "frustration" OR "boredom" OR "joy" OR "hope" OR "pride" OR "anxiety" OR "hopelessness" OR "shame" OR "anger") AND ("learn" OR "education"). The search was limited to the time period from January 1, 2013 to July 1, 2023.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 PRISMA flowchart of the meta-analysis process</p> <p>To ensure the quality of the research sample, we only searched for articles in the SCI-EXPANDED and SSCI categories within the Web of Science Core Collection. This initial search yielded 1811 articles. After excluding conference abstracts, news articles, and literature reviews, and focusing on articles within the field of education, we obtained a total of 486 articles. Subsequently, two researchers (first author and second author) independently applied the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria to further eliminate articles. Then, through a full-text review, 37 articles were finally identified as meeting all the criteria for this meta-analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-6">Coding and meta-analysis framework</hd> <p>This study aimed to investigate the impact of different combinations of game elements on student learning outcomes and explore other variables that may moderate this impact. Therefore, the research focused on game elements as the independent variable, learning outcomes as the dependent variable, and participant learning stage, learning domain, and intervention duration as moderating variables. After reaching a consensus on coding rules, two coders (first author and second author) independently coded the 37 articles included in the study. Each article provided the following information:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Publication details (title, authors, year)</item> <p></p> <item> Participant learning stage (K-12, higher education)</item> <p></p> <item> Intervention duration</item> <p></p> <item> Game elements involved in the intervention</item> <p></p> <item> Learning domain (Mathematical Sciences: science, physics, math, etc.; Social Sciences: psychology, education, history, etc.; Engineering Sciences: computer science, engineering, etc.; Humanities and Arts: culture, foreign languages, etc.; Other)</item> <p></p> <item> Learning outcomes (cognitive, skill-based, affective)</item> <p></p> <item> Data for calculating effect sizes (mean, standard deviation, sample size, <emph>t</emph>-value, <emph>p</emph>-value, etc.)</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188049013-7">Game elements coding</hd> <p>In this study, we employed the six dimensions proposed by Garris et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref44">35</reflink>]) to classify the 37 selected research samples (Table 1). The dimensions include Fantasy, Rules/Goals, Sensory Stimuli, Challenge, Mystery, and Control.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Fantasy refers to "mental images of physical or social situations that do not exist. (Malone & Lepper, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref45">56</reflink>])" Within games, elements related to fantasy include "role-playing," "virtual scenarios," "virtual characters," and others.</item> <p></p> <item> Rules/Goals refer to a set of effective rules within a fixed space and time in a game. Examples include determining criteria for success or failure, such as "accumulating 10 points to progress to the next level." Corresponding game elements include "points," "badges," "progress bars," and similar features.</item> <p></p> <item> Sensory Stimuli encompasses perceptual elements, such as images and animations, that attract students' attention.</item> <p></p> <item> Challenge refers to activities that surpass students' current abilities, presenting tasks with higher difficulty levels. Examples include "progressive difficulty levels," "competition," "leaderboards," and related elements.</item> <p></p> <item> Mystery refers to unexpected situations that arouse students' curiosity. Elements related to mystery include "adventures," "surprises," "randomness," and others.</item> <p></p> <item> Control refers to the exercise of power to perform certain actions. In games, control can be categorized into two main types: program control, where the teaching program controls all elements of instruction, and learner control, where learners control elements of the instructional plan.</item> </ulist> <p>Table 1 Game dimensions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Game dimensions</p></th><th align="left"><p>Examples</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Fantasy</p></td><td align="left"><p>Role play, imaginary context, virtual character,fantasy themes, etc.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rules/Goals</p></td><td align="left"><p>Feedback on progress toward goals like points, badge, progress bar, etc.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sensory Stimuli</p></td><td align="left"><p>Dramatic or novel visual and auditory stimuli</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Challenge</p></td><td align="left"><p>Progressive difficulty levels, competition, leaderboards, etc.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mystery</p></td><td align="left"><p>Adventure, surprise, randomness, etc.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control</p></td><td align="left"><p>Active learner control</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>For the 37 research samples included in this meta-analysis, we extracted the game elements involved in each gamified learning design and matched them with the dimensions of the six game elements. The results revealed that 4 studies incorporated the Rules/Goals element (Rules/Goals), 18 studies incorporated the Rules/Goals and Challenge elements (Rules/Goals + Challenge), 10 studies incorporated the Rules/Goals, Challenge, and Fantasy elements (Rules/Goals + Challenge + Fantasy), and 5 studies incorporated the Rules/Goals, Challenge, and Mystery elements (Rules/Goals + Challenge + Mystery). The final coding results are shown in Table 2. For convenience, we abbreviate Rules/Goals as R/G, Challenge as C, Fantasy as F, and Mystery as M.</p> <p>Table 2 Coding of independent variable classification</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Category</p></th><th align="left"><p>References</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>R/G</p></td><td align="left"><p>Schürmann and Quaiser-Pohl (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr74">2022</xref>), Sanchez et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr72">2020</xref>), De et al. (2022), Morris et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60">2019</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Jones et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr43">2022</xref>), Tasadduq et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr78">2021</xref>), Morales-Trujillo and García-Mireles (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2020</xref>), Murillo-Zamorano et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2021</xref>), Zhao et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr92">2021</xref>), Jiménez-Hernández et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2020</xref>), Sailer and Sailer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2021</xref>), Lo and Hew (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55">2020</xref>), Zainuddin (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr90">2018</xref>), De-Marcos et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2016</xref>), Van and Zaman (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr82">2018</xref>), Chen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2023</xref>), Ugur-Erdogmus and Çakır (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr81">2022</xref>), Schultz et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr73">2022</xref>), Eltahir et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2021</xref>), Kaya and Ercag (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2023</xref>), Yang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr88">2023</xref>), Tan et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr77">2023</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + F</p></td><td align="left"><p>Marín et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2018</xref>), Ahmad et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3">2020</xref>), Domínguez et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2013</xref>), Stansbury and Earnest (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr76">2017</xref>), Garcia-Cabot et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2020</xref>), Recabarren et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2021</xref>), Chen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2020</xref>), Chen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2020</xref>), Bräuer and Mazarakis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2022</xref>), Chen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2023</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + M</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ahmad et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2021</xref>), Areed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2021</xref>), Buckley and Doyle (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2016</xref>), Hung & Yeh (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2023</xref>), Hsiao et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2023</xref>)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>R/G:Rules/Goals; C: Challenge; F: Fantasy; M: Mystery</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-8">Meta-analysis framework</hd> <p>The research framework of this meta-analysis is illustrated in Fig. 2. To investigate the impact of gamified learning on students' learning outcomes, the study selected learning outcomes as the dependent variable. Overall learning outcomes were categorized into cognitive learning outcomes, skill-based learning outcomes, and affective learning outcomes (Garris et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref46">35</reflink>]). Referring to the classification of game elements proposed by Garris et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref47">35</reflink>]), we categorized all the combinations of game elements in the research samples as follows: R/G, R/G + C, R/G + C + F, and R/G + C + M. These combinations of game elements served as the independent variables in this study.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Meta-analysis framework</p> <p>Additionally, the moderating variables in this meta-analysis include the learning domain, learning stage, and gamified learning intervention duration, which are encoded as shown in Table 3. The learning domains mentioned in the 37 studies were categorized as Mathematics Sciences, Engineering Sciences, Humanities and Art, Social Sciences, and Others. The participants' learning stages were classified as K-12 and Higher Education. The duration of the gamified learning intervention was categorized as within a day, within a week, within a month, within 6 months, and within a year.</p> <p>Table 3 Coding of the moderator variables used in this study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Moderator variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coding</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Learning Domain</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mathematical sciences, Engineering sciences, Humanities and Art, Social Sciences, Others</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Learning Stage</p></td><td align="left"><p>K-12, Higher Education</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Intervention Duration</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 day, Within 1 week, Within 1 month, Within half a year, Within 1 year</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0188049013-9">Effect size calculation</hd> <p>The Comprehensive Meta Analysis V3 (CMA 3.0) software was employed in this meta-analysis study to facilitate the calculation of effect sizes and visualize the data. The inclusion of original data in CMA 3.0 encompassed key information such as sample size, mean values, standard deviations, <emph>t</emph>-values, and other relevant statistics. To analyze the impact of gamified learning on students' learning outcomes, the average standard deviation (d), commonly known as Cohen's d, was utilized as the effect size measure. According to Cohen's guidelines (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref48">19</reflink>]), effect sizes around 0.2 are generally interpreted as indicating a small influence or effect. Effect sizes around 0.5 are considered to represent a moderate impact, while effect sizes around 0.8 are indicative of a large effect.</p> <p>By employing CMA 3.0 and calculating effect sizes using the average standard deviation (d), this meta-analysis aimed to provide a comprehensive and quantitative analysis of the influence of gamified learning on students' learning outcomes. The effect sizes obtained will enable the synthesis and comparison of results across the included studies, shedding light on the overall effectiveness of gamification in educational settings.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-10">Data analysis and results</hd> <p>The present meta-analysis included a total of 182 effect sizes derived from 37 study samples (Table 4). Firstly, "Rules/Goals" was employed in 4 studies, leading to 20 effect sizes. Secondly, the combination of "Rules/Goals + Challenge" was implemented in 18 studies, resulting in 84 effect sizes. Thirdly, 10 studies incorporated the combination of "Rules/Goals + Challenge + Fantasy," producing 50 effect sizes. Lastly, "Rules/Goals + Challenge + Mystery" was employed in 5 studies, resulting in 28 effect sizes.</p> <p>Table 4 Study characteristics included in meta-analysis</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Study</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Game elements</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Learning domain</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Learning stage</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Intervention duration</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>K</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Learning outcomes</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Cognitive</p></th><th align="left"><p>Skill-based</p></th><th align="left"><p>Affective</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Schürmann and Quaiser-Pohl (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr74">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sanchez et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr72">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Bräuer and Mazarakis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + F</p></td><td align="left"><p>Others</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 day</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Chen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + F</p></td><td align="left"><p>Humanities and Arts</p></td><td align="left"><p>K-12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 week</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Jones et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr43">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Others</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tasadduq et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr78">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Engineering Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>De Santo et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G</p></td><td align="left"><p>Engineering Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ahmad et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + M</p></td><td align="left"><p>Engineering Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Chen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + F</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mathematics Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>K-12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 month</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Recabarren et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + F</p></td><td align="left"><p>Engineering Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Morales-Trujillo and García-Mireles (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Engineering Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Murillo-Zamorano et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Zhao et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr92">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mathematics Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>K-12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 month</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Morris et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60">2019</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G</p></td><td align="left"><p>Humanities and Art</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Jiménez-Hernández et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Engineering science</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 month</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Garcia-Cabot et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + F</p></td><td align="left"><p>Engineering science</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 month</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sailer and Sailer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 day</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Lo and Hew (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mathematics Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>K-12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Zainuddin (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr90">2018</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mathematics Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>K-12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Stansbury and Earnest (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr76">2017</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + F</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>De-Marcos et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2016</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Engineering science</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Domínguez et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2013</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + F</p></td><td align="left"><p>Engineering Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ahmad et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + F</p></td><td align="left"><p>Engineering science</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Van Roy and Zaman (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr82">2018</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Humanities and Arts</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Areed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + M</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mathematics Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Chen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Humanities and Art</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 day</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Buckley and Doyle (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2016</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + M</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 month</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ugur-Erdogmus and Çakır (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr81">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 month</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schultz et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr73">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Others</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Eltahir et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Humanities and Arts</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 day</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Marín et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2018</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + F</p></td><td align="left"><p>Engineering science</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 month</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Chen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + F</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mathematics Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>K-12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 day</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kaya and Ercag (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hung and Yeh (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + M</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 day</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Yang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr88">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Others</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 month</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hsiao et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + M</p></td><td align="left"><p>Others</p></td><td align="left"><p>K-12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within half a year</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tan et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr77">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Others</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within 1 day</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Furthermore, the studies were conducted within different learning domain, with Mathematical Sciences being the focus of 6 studies, generating 31 effect sizes. Engineering Sciences were the subject of 11 studies, resulting in 63 effect sizes. Five studies centered on Humanities and Art, yielding 23 effect sizes. Nine studies explored Social Sciences, producing 30 effect sizes. Finally, 6 studies investigated Other domain, generating a total of 35 effect sizes.</p> <p>Regarding the learning stage, 30 studies with higher education students resulted in 139 effect sizes. Meanwhile, 7 studies consisting of K-12 students generated 43 effect sizes.</p> <p>Furthermore, interventions were assessed with respect to their duration. Of the 37 studies, 7 studies had interventions lasting less than 1 day, resulting in 19 effect sizes. Additionally, 1 study had an intervention duration of less than 1 week, resulting in 10 effect sizes. Eight studies had interventions lasting less than 1 month, yielding 35 effect sizes. 20 studies had interventions with a duration of less than 6 months, producing 114 effect sizes. Finally, 1 study had an intervention duration of less than 1 year, generating 4 effect sizes.</p> <p>Finally, the analysis revealed that out of the 182 effect sizes, 49 related to cognitive learning outcomes, 37 related to skill-based learning outcomes, and 96 were associated with affective learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-11">Publication bias assessment</hd> <p>Publication bias is a common systematic error in meta-analysis, referring to the tendency for statistically significant results to be more likely to be published than non-significant or null results (Xia, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref49">85</reflink>]). In this study, three methods, namely funnel plot, Egger's test and fail-safe N, were employed to assess publication bias. The funnel plot provides a visual representation of publication bias, as shown in Fig. 3, where the X-axis represents the standardized mean difference (SMD) of each individual study, and the Y-axis represents the standard error (SE) of each study. The middle line within the funnel represents the average effect size of this study. The overall shape of the plot demonstrates symmetry, with 182 effect sizes from 37 included studies basically evenly distributed on both sides of the average effect size, indicating a low likelihood of publication bias. Furthermore, a non-significant <emph>p</emph>-value (<emph>p</emph> = 0.1982) was examined in the Egger's test for a regression intercept, which indicated there was no evidence of publication bias in this meta-analysis. Additionally, following Rosenthal's criteria, if the fail-safe N is substantially greater than the acceptable level of 5 k + 10 (where k represents the total number of reported effect sizes in the meta-analysis), the presence of publication bias would not significantly impact the results of the meta-analysis (Rosenthal, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref50">69</reflink>]). In this study, the fail-safe N is calculated as 4747, which is much larger than the threshold of 920 (5 × 182 + 10). This suggests that the inclusion of unpublished studies is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the effect sizes obtained in this study. Based on the aforementioned analyses, the possibility of publication bias in this study appears to be minimal, indicating the stability of the meta-analysis results.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 The funnel plot of effect size</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-12">Heterogeneity test</hd> <p>In this study, heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I2 statistic. The <emph>Q</emph> value was calculated as 1296.7 (<emph>p</emph> < <emph>0.001</emph>), indicating significant heterogeneity among the studies. The <emph>I</emph><sups>2</sups> value was determined to be 81.197%, indicating that 81% of the observed heterogeneity can be attributed to true differences in effect sizes, while the remaining 19% may be due to error. The sources of this heterogeneity could be attributed to various factors, including differences in the elements of gamified learning design, variations in the content domains of gamified learning, disparities in the learning stages of the participants, gender differences, and national differences. These factors contribute to the substantial heterogeneity observed among the included studies (> <emph>75%)</emph>. Consequently, a random effects model (Random Effects) was employed in this study to adjust the algorithm for estimating the pooled effect size (Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref51">87</reflink>]), aiming to provide a more unbiased estimation of the results.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-13">Overall effect of gamified learning on students' learning outcomes</hd> <p>The present study included a total of 37 research samples, comprising 182 effect sizes and involving 3684 participants. Among them, 1939 were engaged in gamified learning and 1745 were engaged in non-gamified learning methods. According to the random effects model, the overall pooled effect size of gamified learning on student learning outcomes was found to be 0.566 (CI: 0.416–0.717, and the forest plot of the selected studies was in Appendix A), which was statistically significant. Therefore, gamified learning had a medium positive impact on overall learning outcomes.</p> <p>As mentioned earlier, learning outcomes were categorized into three dimensions: skills, cognitive, and affective. A comparative analysis was conducted to examine the effects of gamified learning on these three dimensions of learning outcomes. The results, presented in Table 5, showed that the effect sizes for all three dimensions were greater than 0 and reached statistical significance (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001), indicating a significant positive influence of gamified learning on student skills, cognitive abilities, and affective aspects of learning. Specifically, the effect sizes for skill and cognitive learning outcomes were 0.548 and 0.611, respectively, both exceeding 0.5. On the other hand, the effect size for affective learning outcomes was 0.444, which was below 0.5. This suggests that gamified learning has a above medium positive effect on student skills and cognitive learning and a moderately low positive effect on student affective learning. Furthermore, the heterogeneity test results (<emph>Q</emph> = 2.665, <emph>p</emph>= 0.264) indicated that there were no significant differences among the three categories of learning outcomes.</p> <p>Table 5 Effect of Gamified learning on students' learning outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Learning outcomes</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>K</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>ES</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Effect size and95% confidence interval</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Two-tailed</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Between-group effect</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Lower</p></th><th align="left"><p>Upper</p></th><th align="left"><p>Z</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall effect</p></td><td align="left"><p>182</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.566</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.076</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.416</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.717</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.228</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>Q = 2.665 <italic>p</italic> = 0.264</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive level</p></td><td align="left"><p>49</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.611</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.095</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.420</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.802</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.624</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Skill-based level</p></td><td align="left"><p>37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.548</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.136</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.272</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.825</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.948</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Affective level</p></td><td align="left"><p>96</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.444</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.109</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.228</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.659</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.541</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> <.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-14">Effect of game elements combination</hd> <p>As mentioned earlier, various game elements integrated into learning were categorized into four types based on the specific situation of the study sample: goal/rules, goal/rules + challenge, goal/rules + challenge + fantasy, and goal/rules + challenge + mystery. We conducted a comparative analysis of the effects of these four game elements on students' learning outcomes.</p> <p>As shown in Table 6, the effect values corresponding to the four game elements are all greater than 0, indicating that no matter which type of game element is integrated into learning, it has a certain positive effect on students' learning outcomes. When only the "goal/rules" element was integrated, the corresponding effect value was the smallest, at 0.037 (<emph>p</emph> = 0.470), indicating that gamified learning with only the "goal/rules" element has a very small and insignificant positive effect on students' learning outcomes. As the number of integrated elements increases, the effect value also increases. Among them, the "goal/rules + challenge + mystery" element combination corresponds to the largest effect value, at 0.518 (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001), indicating that designing gamified learning with this element combination has a more significantly positive effect on students' learning outcomes compared to the rest of the combinations, and above medium. The effect values for the game element combinations of "goal/rules + challenge" and "goal/rules + challenge + fantasy" were 0.486 (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and 0.498 (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001) respectively, which means that they have a significant positive effect on students' learning outcomes at a level close to moderate.</p> <p>Table 6 The difference of the influence of different game elements combination on students' learning outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Game elements combination</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>K</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>ES</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Effect size and95% confidence interval</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Two-tailed</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Between-group effect</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Lower</p></th><th align="left"><p>Upper</p></th><th align="left"><p>Z</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>R/G</p></td><td align="left"><p>20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.037</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.051</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.063</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.136</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.722</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.470</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>Q = 72.048 <italic>p</italic> < 0.001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>R/G + C</p></td><td align="left"><p>84</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.486</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.026</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.435</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.537</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18.574</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + F</p></td><td align="left"><p>50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.498</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.036</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.428</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.568</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.943</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>R/G + C + M</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.518</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.046</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.427</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.609</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.207</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> <.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.001 R/G:Rules/Goals; C: Challenge; F: Fantasy; M: Mystery</p> <p>Furthermore, the heterogeneity test <emph>Q</emph>-value result (<emph>Q</emph> = 72.048, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) shows that there are significant differences in the effects of different game element combinations on students' learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-15">Moderator analyses</hd> <p>According to the research framework of this meta-analysis, the learning domain, learning stage, and duration of gamified learning intervention are likely to have moderating effects on the learning outcomes of gamified learning. Table 7 presents the meta-analysis results for the influence of each moderator variable on gamified learning outcomes.</p> <p>Table 7 Effects of the moderating variables on the influence of gamified learning on the overall learning outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Moderator variable</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>K</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>ES</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Effect size and 95% confidence interval</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Two-tailed</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Between-group effect</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Lower</p></th><th align="left"><p>Upper</p></th><th align="left"><p>Z</p></th><th align="left"><p>p</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Learning domain</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>Q = 24.180 <italic>p</italic> < 0.001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Mathematical sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.578</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.049</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.481</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.674</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.729</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Engineering sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>63</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.495</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.031</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.435</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.555</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.177</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Humanities and art</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.345</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.055</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.238</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.453</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.296</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Social sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>21</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.332</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.034</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.266</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.399</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.842</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.446</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.049</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.349</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.543</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.049</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Learning stage</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>Q = 0.413 <italic>p</italic> = 0.521</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> K-12</p></td><td align="left"><p>38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.432</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.020</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.393</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.471</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21.614</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Higher education</p></td><td align="left"><p>116</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.461</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.041</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.381</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.541</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.257</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Intervention duration</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>Q = 37.841 <italic>p</italic> < 0.001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Within 1 day</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.632</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.050</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.533</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.731</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.519</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Within 1 week</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.137</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.086</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.031</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.305</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.604</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.109</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Within 1 month</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.513</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.041</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.433</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.593</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.570</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Within half a year</p></td><td align="left"><p>104</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.387</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.023</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.342</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.432</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.783</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Within 1 year</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.604</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.106</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.396</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.812</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.687</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> < 0.001**</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> <.05; ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-16">Effect of learning domain</hd> <p>The coding results of the included studies in this meta-analysis indicate that gamified learning serves various instructional purposes across different disciplines. Various disciplines, such as computer science, education, language learning, mathematics, physics, science, economics, business, medicine, and others, have been exploring the use of gamified approaches to enhance student learning outcomes. By classifying the studies according to different disciplines, this study focuses on analyzing the learning outcomes of gamified learning in five disciplinary domains: mathematical sciences, engineering sciences, humanities and arts, social sciences, and other disciplines.</p> <p>As shown in Table 7, the effect sizes in these five disciplinary domains are all greater than zero, indicating that gamified learning has a positive impact on student learning outcomes across these domains. Specifically, the effect sizes in mathematical sciences and engineering sciences domains both demonstrate a significant positive impact, with the highest effect size of 0.578 observed in mathematical sciences domain (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001). On the other hand, the humanities and arts, social sciences, and other disciplinary domains show moderately lower significant effects on student learning outcomes, with the social sciences domain exhibiting the lowest effect size of 0.332 (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001).</p> <p>Furthermore, the heterogeneity test results (<emph>Q</emph> = 24.180, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) indicate significant differences in effect sizes among different disciplinary domains, suggesting that the impact of gamified learning varies across disciplines.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-17">Effect of learning stage</hd> <p>To examine the differential effects of gamified learning on improving student learning outcomes across different educational stages, we calculated the effect sizes corresponding to higher education and K-12 education, as presented in Table 7. It can be observed that the effect size for higher education is 0.461 (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001), closing to 0.5, while the effect size for K-12 education is 0.432 (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001), also closing to 0.5. These findings indicate that gamified learning has a significant positive impact of near-moderate magnitude on student learning outcomes in both higher education and K-12 education. Further analysis of the heterogeneity test results (<emph>Q</emph> = 0.413, <emph>p</emph> = 0.521) reveals no significant differences between the two educational stages.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-18">Effect of intervention duration</hd> <p>In order to examine the differential effects of gamified learning on enhancing student learning outcomes based on the duration of interventions in various studies, we categorized them into five different experimental periods: less than 1 day, 1 day to 1 week, 1 week to 1 month, 1 month to 6 months, and 6 months to 1 year. A comparative analysis was conducted to assess the impact of gamified learning on learning outcomes across these different intervention periods.</p> <p>As shown in Table 7, the effect sizes for all five intervention periods are greater than 0, indicating their positive influence on student learning outcomes. The effect sizes for the intervention periods of "less than one day" and "six months to one year" shows significantly moderate to high positive effects on student learning outcomes, which are 0.632 (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and 0.604(<emph>p</emph> < 0.001). This suggests that gamified learning interventions within a day have a significantly positive impact of moderate to high magnitude on student learning outcomes. The effect sizes for the "one week to one month" intervention periods is 0.513 (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001), indicating a moderate and significant impact on learning outcomes. The effect size for the "one month to six months" intervention period is 0.387 (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001), demonstrating a moderate to low significant impact on learning outcomes. On the other hand, the "one day to one week" intervention period exhibits the lowest effect size of 0.137 (<emph>p</emph> = 0.109), indicating a small and non-significant influence of gamified learning interventions within this time frame on student learning outcomes.</p> <p>Furthermore, the results of the heterogeneity test (<emph>Q</emph> = 37.841, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) indicate significant differences among the different intervention periods, suggesting varying degrees of impact on student learning outcomes across these durations.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-19">Discussion</hd> <p>The meta-analysis conducted in this study examined 182 effect sizes from 37 articles, with the aim of comparing the effects of different combinations of game elements on skill, cognitive, and affective learning outcomes. Three potential moderators were considered: academic discipline, learning stage, and intervention duration. Overall, the average effect size results indicate that gamified learning has a significant impact on student learning outcomes at a moderate level when compared to traditional learning methods. Specifically, the highest effect size was observed when using the combination of rewards/goals, challenges, and mastery elements (R/G + C + M). Additionally, we found that gamified learning interventions in the field of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) demonstrated higher effect sizes compared to other academic disciplines, while interventions in the field of social sciences and humanities and arts showed the lowest impact on learning outcomes. These findings provide specific evidence supporting the benefits of gamified learning. Furthermore, the duration of gamified learning interventions was found to moderate the level of impact, providing guidance and reference for educational practitioners in implementing gamified approaches.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-20">Gamified learning has a greater positive impact on students' cognitive and skill-based learni...</hd> <p>The research findings indicate that gamified learning has a moderate positive impact on students' skill and cognitive learning outcomes, which is consistent with previous studies (Huang et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref52">39</reflink>]; Sailer & Homner, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref53">70</reflink>]). The relevant features and elements of games can stimulate the release of dopamine in the human brain, promoting neuronal connections and enhancing learners' attention, thus improving learning effectiveness (Li, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref54">52</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref55">53</reflink>]). Therefore, gamified learning can be used to enhance students' cognitive and skill learning.</p> <p>However, the positive impact of gamified learning on affective learning outcomes is relatively small, which is also supported by existing meta-analysis studies (Dondio et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref56">28</reflink>]; Sailer & Homner, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref57">70</reflink>]). We propose three possible explanations for these results. First, most of the measurement of student affective aspects in randomized experiments and quasi-randomized experiments related to gamified learning is conducted through questionnaires. The use of questionnaires for measurement itself has certain limitations, as participants' understanding of the questions, their attitudes towards completing the questionnaires, and the limitations of the questionnaires in capturing in-depth insights can all affect the true results (Xie & Li, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref58">86</reflink>]; Zheng, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref59">93</reflink>]). The second possible reason is that when designing gamified learning interventions, the primary focus is often on improving students' academic performance and learning outcomes rather than learning affective. Lastly, concerning the dimension of negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, frustration, boredom, hopelessness, shame, several studies have indicated that the positive impact of gamified learning on reducing students' learning stress and anxiety is minimal (Sailer & Homner, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref60">70</reflink>]). In fact, some studies have found that students' negative emotion levels may even increase after gamified learning interventions (Ahmad et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>]). Reasons for this can be manifold, for example, technical glitches or system failures may interfere with the learning experience, making students frustrated and bored (Schürmann & Quaiser-Pohl, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref62">74</reflink>]; Tasadduq et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref63">78</reflink>]); competition and ranking systems (e.g., league tables) can lead to feelings of stress and frustration for some students, especially those who are ranked lower, and this stress can lead to anxiety and shame (Zainuddin, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref64">90</reflink>]); gamified learning environments do not take into account the individual needs and learning preferences of students, which may lead to boredom (Rivera & Garden, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref65">68</reflink>]);overuse of gamification elements may lead to student fatigue, which can lead to negative emotions (Bräuer & Mazarakis, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref66">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Therefore, in future research, there is a need to design gamified learning interventions specifically targeting the affective dimension and explore this area as an unknown territory. Additionally, apart from subjective measurements using questionnaires, researchers should also consider employing multimodal technologies to provide real-time and objective feedback on students' physiological components during the learning process, aiming to obtain data that closely reflects the actual situation.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-21">The addition of the "challenge" and "mystery" elements enhances the positive impact of gamifi...</hd> <p>The research results demonstrate significant differences in the impact of different combinations of game elements on students' learning outcomes. When only the "rules/goals" element is incorporated, the positive impact of gamified learning on student learning outcomes is minimal. However, the positive impact is significantly higher when the element of "challenge" or a combination of "challenge" and "fantasy" is added to "rules/goals". In addition, the positive impact of the gamification approach on learning outcomes was greatest when the element of "mystery" was introduced to replace "fantasy", i.e., the combination of "rules/goals + challenge + mystery". This conclusion is novel and has not been previously reported in existing meta-analysis studies.</p> <p>In the sample of studies included in this meta-analysis, all gamified learning designs incorporated the "rules/goals" element. Rules provide explicit gameplay, and goals provide feedback to students on the gap between their current performance and optimal performance (Garris et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref67">35</reflink>]). For example, in a game where completing a certain number of tasks is required to earn a badge, displaying a progress bar indicating the distance to the badge goal can effectively capture students' attention. This tangible feedback on the gap may lead to increased learning effort and performance (Kernan & Lord, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref68">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, brain neuroscience research has suggested that only the rules/goals may not be effective enough to activate the brain's reward system, and thus not be sufficient to promote positive emotions and behaviors during the learning process. We speculate that gamified learning with only "rules/goals" elements has little impact on learning outcomes, possibly because it does not provide sufficient engagement. In the gamified context, "Fantasy" may enhance the learning experience by providing an engaging story setting and characters that increase learners' immersion and emotional engagement (Bai et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref69">6</reflink>]).In addition, "challenge" elements can increase learners' cognitive engagement because they require more effort and strategies to overcome, which echoes self-determination theory in psychology, which suggests that challenges fulfill learners' needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Chiu et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref70">18</reflink>]). As mentioned by Chiu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref71">18</reflink>]), these basic needs can be better met when the learning environment provides elements of "challenge" and "fantasy". Thus, the significant improvement in the positive impact on learning outcomes after adding the "challenge" and "fantasy" element can be explained.</p> <p>Now, why does the positive impact reach its highest level when the "mystery" element is added? Research in cognitive neuroscience has shown that curiosity and the desire to explore are linked to the dopamine system in the brain, which is closely related to motivation and memory formation (Zuo et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref72">94</reflink>]). "Mystery" elements can further enhance the learning experience by introducing the unknown and curiosity, which can increase the learner's desire to explore and motivation to learn. In this case, learners' learning motivation is maximally stimulated and maintained. Thus, as long as appropriate goals are provided as guidance, learners will exhibit enhanced learning willingness and effectiveness.</p> <p>Therefore, in future gamified learning designs, in addition to game elements such as rules/goals, educational practitioners can add some challenge and mystery elements such as "increasing difficulty + leaderboards"(Ahmad et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref73">2</reflink>]), "random sampling + increasing difficulty"(Areed et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>]), and "random intervention + competition + leaderboards"(Buckley & Doyle, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref75">13</reflink>]), which will stimulate students' curiosities and explorations to improve their learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-22">Learning domains and gamified learning intervention duration have significant moderating effe...</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188049013-23">The fields of mathematical sciences and engineering sciences are particularly suitable for ga...</hd> <p>The research results indicate significant differences in the effects of gamified learning across different learning domains. Specifically, gamified learning showed the highest positive impact in mathematical sciences, followed by engineering sciences, which aligns with the findings of Li et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref76">53</reflink>]). However, for humanities, arts, social sciences, and other disciplines, gamified learning only demonstrated a moderate to low influence. This result is thought provoking.</p> <p>Zhang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref77">91</reflink>]) argued that disciplines with well-structured knowledge are more suitable for gamified learning because game elements are better suited to combine with tasks that have clear and defined steps, thereby assisting learners in acquiring knowledge and skills in such domains more effectively. One of the defining characteristics of mathematical sciences and engineering sciences is their strong knowledge structuring. Whether it is the computational steps in mathematics, the derivation of physics formulas, or procedural knowledge in computer science and engineering, these disciplines exhibit well-defined and clear structural divisions. The advantage of gamified learning is its ability to combine learning content with gamified challenges and tasks, making the learning process more engaging and participatory. Through gamified learning, students can try, make mistakes and learn from them in a safe environment without feeling the pressure to fail as they do in traditional learning styles. At the same time, in a gamified learning environment, students can receive feedback on problems and challenges through direct comparison with standardized answers, and this accurate feedback helps students identify and bridge cognitive gaps while reducing cognitive load and increasing motivation (Turan et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref78">80</reflink>]). However, there are also researchers who have obtained results indicating an above medium impact of gamified learning in the field of social sciences (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref79">53</reflink>]), which is inconsistent with the findings of this study. The reasons for this discrepancy may lie in the differences in student characteristics, teaching methods employed by teachers, and the learning processes examined in the selected literature (Huang et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref80">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Therefore, in future teaching practices involving gamified learning, educators may focus on utilizing it in subjects that have a strong structural foundation, such as mathematics, physics, computer science, and engineering. This is more likely to enhance the effectiveness of gamified learning. As researchers, we should continue to expand our scope of research. For example, we can explore how to design effective gamification strategies that can produce greater positive impact on social sciences in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-24">The level of challenge and stimulation in gamified learning should match the cognitive stage...</hd> <p>The research findings indicated that gamified learning has a significant positive impact on the learning outcomes of students in both K-12 and higher education, with a similar moderate effect size. Although the effect size in the K-12 stage is slightly lower than in higher education, the difference is not statistically significant. This suggests that gamified learning is applicable to both K-12 and higher education settings. However, some meta-analysis studies have shown that the impact of gamified learning in higher education is significantly higher than in the K-12 stage (Bolat & Taş, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref81">10</reflink>]; Kim & Castelli, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref82">48</reflink>]). This difference in results warrants further discussion. Some researchers argued that older students may be more receptive to the competitive and social comparison mechanisms embedded in gamified learning designs (Garland, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref83">33</reflink>]; Huang et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref84">39</reflink>]). However, according to Trevino and Webster ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref85">79</reflink>]), we know that individuals experience a heightened state of sensory and cognitive stimulation, known as flow, when their cognitive and skill levels are balanced with the challenges they face. This state of flow promotes efficient learning (Agarwal & Karahanna, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>]). In the learning process, both K-12 and higher education students should experience this heightened state of stimulation. However, when the challenge level is below students' cognitive abilities, they may struggle to be "awakened" due to insufficient stimulation. Conversely, when the challenge level far exceeds students' cognitive abilities, they may be overwhelmed and inclined to give up. Therefore, the limited impact of gamified learning on K-12 students' learning outcomes might be attributed to the difficulty of finding a balance between the challenges and students' cognitive levels. This needs to be further explored by our researchers.</p> <p>In future gamified learning design, educational practitioners should be mindful that students in lower stages have lower cognitive and skill levels and, therefore, require lower levels of challenge. Conversely, as students progress to higher stages, they require more challenging tasks (Feng, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref87">31</reflink>]). The design of gamified learning should consistently maintain a balance between stimulation and acceptability, always aligning with the optimal level of awakening for students at their respective stages. Only by achieving this balance can gamified learning deliver better learning outcomes and immersive experiences for students (Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref88">54</reflink>]; Davis, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref89">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-25">The novelty of short-term intervention and the internal motivation developed by long-term int...</hd> <p>The research findings indicate that the duration of gamified learning interventions has a moderating effect on learning outcomes. When the intervention duration does not exceed 1 day, it has the largest impact on learning outcomes, followed by interventions lasting from 6 months to 1 year. In contrast, interventions lasting 1 day to 1 week have the smallest effect size. This result is consistent with the findings of Zhang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref90">91</reflink>]), which is thought-provoking.</p> <p>The moderating effect of the duration of gamified learning interventions on learning outcomes may be influenced by a variety of factors. Initially, short-term interventions (not exceeding 1 day) may, due to their novelty and concentration, immediately capture students' attention and interest, thereby producing significant learning effects in a relatively short period of time (Broach et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref91">12</reflink>]). This high-intensity focused learning may promote efficient information processing and memory retention in students over a short span. However, such effects may diminish rapidly over time due to the lack of sustained engagement and in-depth learning processes (Hamari et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref92">37</reflink>]). At the same time, interventions lasting 6 months to a year may allow students to gradually absorb and apply the knowledge learned over a longer period. This shift allowed the strong external motivation initially provided by the novelty and stimulation of gamified learning to gradually transition to intrinsic motivation (Bao & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref93">7</reflink>]). In addition, this prolonged learning process may involve more complex learning mechanisms, such as the development of metacognitive strategies and deep learning, all of which contribute to enhancing the durability and depth of learning outcomes. However, interventions of 1 day to 1 week may, due to their temporal limitations, neither possess the concentrated effects of short-term interventions nor the sustainability of long-term interventions, and thus may perform poorly in terms of effectiveness. Moreover, such medium-length interventions may not be sufficient for students to form stable learning habits or to gain a deep understanding of the learning materials.</p> <p>Therefore, in future gamified learning design, educational practitioners should focus on how to gradually transform external motivations (e.g., rewards and competition) in the early stages of gamified learning into internal motivations (e.g., interest and self-actualization) for students. This may involve personalized learning paths, meaningful learning goals, and opportunities for self-reflection. In addition, when designing gamified learning activities, consideration should be given to meeting students' cognitive needs such as challenge, relevance and autonomy in order to promote long-term learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-26">Conclusion and limitation</hd> <p>The study aimed to quantitatively assess the impact of gamified learning on student learning outcomes through a meta-analysis of 182 effect sizes from 37 studies. It was found that gamified learning has a moderate positive effect on enhancing student learning outcomes, with the integration of "rules/goals + challenge + mystery" elements in instructional design showing particularly significant positive impacts. Additionally, the research identified the learning domain and intervention duration as moderators of the effectiveness of gamified learning, with gamified learning interventions in STEM fields showing better performance in improving learning outcomes. These findings provided clear guidance for educational practitioners, especially in the design and selection of game elements.</p> <p>However, the study's limitations lied in the lack of in-depth exploration of the specific impacts of different game element combinations on various learning outcomes, and the small sample sizes for some variables may affect the generalizability of the results. Future research should validate these conclusions across a broader range of subject areas and educational stages, and consider using more diverse methods to assess the affective and behavioral effects of gamified learning.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-27">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This work was supported the financial supports by National Science Foundation Youth Foundation of China "Research on Supporting Mechanism and Model Construction of Process Mining Technology for Teaching Decision-making in Online Sharing Regulation" Grant/Award Number: 62207026 and Fundamental Research Funds for the Provincial Universities of Zhejiang Grant/Award Number: GB202302007.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-28">Author contributions</hd> <p>Wei Xu and Wei-Ang Dai designed and carried out the research and conducted the data analysis and summary. Qian-Wen Xing participated in the data analysis. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-29">Funding</hd> <p>This work was supported by the [National Science Foundation Youth Foundation of China] under [Grant Number 62207026], and the [Fundamental Research Funds for the Provincial Universities of Zhejiang] under [Grant Number GB202302007].</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-30">Data availability</hd> <p>The database generated for this study is available upon request to the corresponding author.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-31">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188049013-32">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-33">Ethical approval</hd> <p>This study was carried out without ethics issue.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-34">Consent to participate</hd> <p>All participants gave their consent for participation.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-35">Consent for publication</hd> <p>All authors gave their consent for publication.</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-36">Appendix A</hd> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0188049013-37">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0188049013-38"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref32" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Agarwal R, Karahanna E. Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly. 2000. 10.2307/3250951</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref33" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmad A, Zeeshan F, Marriam R, Samreen A, Ahmed S. Does one size fit all? Investigating the effect of group size and gamification on learners' behaviors in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2021; 33; 2: 296-327. 10.1007/s12528-020-09266-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref34" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmad A, Zeshan F, Khan MS, Marriam R, Ali A, Samreen A. The impact of gamification on learning outcomes of computer science majors. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE). 2020; 20; 2: 1-25. 10.1145/3383456</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref21" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alsawaier RS. The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology. 2018; 35; 1: 56-79. 10.1108/IJILT-02-2017-0009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref36" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Areed MF, Amasha MA, Abougalala RA, Alkhalaf S, Khairy D. Developing gamification e-quizzes based on an android app: The impact of asynchronous form. Education and Information Technologies. 2021; 26: 4857-4878. 10.1007/s10639-021-10469-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref37" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bai S, Hew KF, Gonda DE. Incorporating fantasy into gamification promotes student learning and quality of online interaction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2022; 19: 29. 10.1186/s41239-022-00335-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref93" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bao ZG, Zhang XK. Overview of research on self-determined cognitive motivation theory. Journal of Northeast Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences). 2005; 6: 6. 10.3969/j.issn.1001-6201.2005.06.027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref27" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bedwell WL, Pavlas D, Heyne K, Lazzara EH, Salas E. Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning: An empirical study. Simulation & Gaming. 2012; 43; 6: 729-760. 10.1177/1046878112439444</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref14" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bencsik A, Mezeiova A, Samu BO. Gamifcation in higher education (Case study on a management subject). International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 2021; 20; 5: 211-231. 10.26803/ijlter.20.5.12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bolat YI, Taş N. A meta-analysis on the effect of gamified-assessment tools' on academic achievement in formal educational settings. Education and Information Technologies. 2022. 10.1007/s10639-022-11411-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bräuer P, Mazarakis A. "Alexa, can we design gamification without a screen?" Implementing cooperative and competitive audio-gamification for intelligent virtual assistants. Computers in Human Behavior. 2022; 135: 107362. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107362</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Broach VC Jr, Page TJ Jr, Wilson RD. Television programming and its influence on viewers' perceptions of commercials: The role of program arousal and pleasantness. Journal of Advertising. 1995; 24; 4: 45-54. 10.1080/00913367.1995.10673488</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buckley P, Doyle E. Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments. 2016; 24; 6: 1162-1175. 10.1080/10494820.2014.964263</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen CH. Impacts of augmented reality and a digital game on students' science learning with reflection prompts in multimedia learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2020; 68; 6: 3057-3076. 10.1007/s11423-020-09834-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen CM, Li MC, Chen TC. A web-based collaborative reading annotation system with gamification mechanisms to improve reading performance. Computers & Education. 2020; 144: 103697. 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103697</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen MF, Chen YC, Zuo PY, Hou HT. Design and evaluation of a remote synchronous gamified mathematics teaching activity that integrates multi-representational scaffolding and a mind tool for gamified learning. Education and Information Technologies. 2023; 28; 10: 13207-13233. 10.1007/s10639-023-11708-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen Y. The effect of using a game-based translation learning app on enhancing college EFL learners' motivation and learning experience. Education and Information Technologies. 2023; 28; 1: 255-282. 10.1007/s10639-022-11174-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chiu TK, Ismailov M, Zhou X, Xia Q, Au CK, Chai CS. Using self-determination theory to explain how community-based learning fosters student interest and identity in integrated STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2023; 21; Suppl 1: 109-130. 10.1007/s10763-023-10382-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2013; Academic Press. 10.4324/9780203771587</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis MS. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety:. The Experience of Play in Work and Games. 1977; 6: 197-199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Felix W, Johnston RT. Learning from video games. Computers in the Schools. 1993; 9: 199-233. 10.1300/J025v09n02_11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Santo A, Farah JC, Martínez ML, Moro A, Bergram K, Purohit AK, Felber P, Gillet D, Holzer A. Promoting Computational Thinking Skills in Non-Computer-Science Students: Gamifying Computational Notebooks to Increase Student Engagement. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. 2022; 15; 3: 392-405. 10.1109/TLT.2022.3180588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dehghanzadeh H, Fardanesh H, Hatami J, Talaee E, Noroozi O. Using gamification to support learning English as a second language: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2019; 1–24: 934-957. 10.1080/09588221.2019.1648298</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De-Marcos L, Garcia-Lopez E, Garcia-Cabot A. On the effectiveness of game-like and social approaches in learning: Comparing educational gaming, gamification & social networking. Computers & Education. 2016; 95: 99-113. 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deterding, S, Sicart, M, Nacke, L, O'Hara, K, & Dixon, D. (2011, May). Gamification: Toward a definition. In Proceedings of the CHI 2011 gamification workshop, Vancouver, British Columbia</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9–15).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Domínguez A, Saenz-de-Navarrete J, De-Marcos L, Fernández-Sanz L, Pagés C, Martínez-Herráiz JJ. Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education. 2013; 63: 380-392. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dondio P, Gusev V, Rocha M. Do games reduce maths anxiety? A meta-analysis. Computers & Education. 2023; 194: 104650. 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104650</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duggal, K, Singh, P, spsampsps Gupta, L. R. (2021). Impact of gamification, games, and game elements in education. In Innovations in Information and Communication Technologies (IICT-2020) proceedings of international conference on ICRIHE-2020, Delhi, India: IICT-2020 (pp. 201–210). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66218-9_23</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eltahir ME, Alsalhi NR, Al-Qatawneh S, AlQudah HA, Jaradat M. The impact of game-based learning (GBL) on students' motivation, engagement and academic performance on an Arabic language grammar course in higher education. Education and Information Technologies. 2021; 26: 3251-3278. 10.1007/s10639-020-10396-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feng, F. (2021). Study on the influence of online gamers' group competition psychological arousal on game addiction and its intervention countermeasures (Master's thesis, Huazhong University of Science and Technology).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garcia-Cabot A, Garcia-Lopez E, Caro-Alvaro S, Gutierrez-Martinez JM, de Marcos L. Measuring the effects on learning performance and engagement with a gamified social platform in an MSc program. Computer Applications in Engineering Education. 2020; 28; 1: 207-223. 10.1002/cae.22186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garland, C. M. (2015). Gamification and implications for second language education: A meta analysis. Culminating Projects in English,40. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/engl_etds/40</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garris, R, & Ahlers, R. (2001, December). A game-based training model: Development, application, and evaluation. In Interservice/industry training, simulation & education conference, Orlando.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garris R, Ahlers R, Driskell JE. Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming. 2002; 33; 4: 441-467. 10.1177/1046878102238607</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gredler MEJonassen DH. Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of a (research) paradigm. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. 1996; Macmillan: 521-540</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamari, J, Koivisto, J, & Sarsa, H. (2014, Jan). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 3025–3034). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanus MD, Fox J. Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education. 2015; 80: 152-161. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang R, Ritzhaupt AD, Sommer M, Zhu J, Stephen A, Valle N, John H, Li J. The impact of gamification in educational settings on student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2020; 68: 1875-1901. 10.1007/s11423-020-09807-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hung HT, Yeh HC. Augmented‐reality‐enhanced game‐based learning in flipped English classrooms: Effects on students' creative thinking and vocabulary acquisition Abstract Lay Description. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2023; 39; 6: 1786-1800. 10.1111/jcal.12839</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsiao HS, Chen JC, Chen JH, Chien YH, Chang CP, Chung GH. A study on the effects of using gamification with the 6E model on high school students' computer programming self-efficacy IoT knowledge hands-on skills and behavioral patterns. Educational technology research and development. 2023; 71; 4: 1821-1849. 10.1007/s11423-023-10216-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiménez-Hernández EM, Oktaba H, Díaz-Barriga F, Piattini M. Using web-based gamified software to learn Boolean algebra simplification in a blended learning setting. Computer Applications in Engineering Education. 2020; 28; 6: 1591-1611. 10.1002/cae.22335</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones M, Blanton JE, Williams RE. Science to practice: Does gamification enhance intrinsic motivation?. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2022. 10.1177/14697874211066882</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kabilan MK, Annamalai N, Chuah KM. Practices, purposes and challenges in integrating gamification using technology: A mixed-methods study on university academics. Education and Information Technologies. 2023; 28; 11: 14249-14281. 10.1007/s10639-023-11723-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karagiorgas DN, Niemann S. Gamification and game-based learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2017; 45; 4: 499-519. 10.1177/0047239516665105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaya OS, Ercag E. The impact of applying challenge-based gamification program on students' learning outcomes: Academic achievement motivation and flow. Education and Information Technologies. 2023; 28; 8: 10053-10078. 10.1007/s10639-023-11585-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kernan MC, Lord RG. Effects of valence, expectancies, and goal-performance discrepancies in single and multiple goal environments. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1990; 75: 194-203. 10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.194</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim J, Castelli DM. Effects of gamification on behavioral change in education: A meta analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18; 7: 3550. 10.3390/ijerph18073550</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyewski E, Krämer NC. To gamify or not to gamify? An experimental field study of the influence of badges on motivation, activity, and performance in an online learning course. Computers & Education. 2018; 118: 25-37. 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb RL, Annetta L, Firestone J, Etopio E. A meta-analysis with examination of moderators of student cognition, affect, and learning outcomes while using serious educational games, serious games, and simulations. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018; 80: 158-167. 10.1016/J.CHB.2017.10.040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landers RN. Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games and gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming. 2014; 45; 6: 752-768. 10.1177/1046878114563660</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li X. A structural design model and experimental study of educational games incorporating "adaptability". Journal of Distance Education. 2015; 33; 2: 7. 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0008.2015.02.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li YB, Song JY, Yao QH. The effect of gamified learning styles on students' learning outcomes: A meta-analysis based on 35 experimental and quasi-experimental studies. e-Education Research. 2019; 11: 56-62. 10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2019.11.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, D, Li, X, & Santhanam, R. (2013). Digital games and beyond: What happens when players compete? MIS Quarterly, 111–124. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/43825939">www.jstor.org/stable/43825939</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lo CK, Hew KF. A comparison of flipped learning with gamification, traditional learning, and online independent study: The effects on students' mathematics achievement and cognitive engagement. Interactive Learning Environments. 2020; 28; 4: 464-481. 10.1080/10494820.2018.1541910</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malone TW, Lepper MR. Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude, learning, and instruction. 2021; Routledge: 223-254</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manzano-León A, Camacho-Lazarraga P, Guerrero MA, Guerrero-Puerta L, Aguilar-Parra JM, Trigueros R, Alias A. Between level up and game over: A systematic literature review of gamification in education. Sustainability. 2021; 13; 4: 2247. 10.3390/su13042247</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marín B, Frez J, Cruz-Lemus J, Genero M. An empirical investigation on the benefits of gamification in programming courses. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE). 2018; 19; 1: 1-22. 10.1145/3231709</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morales-Trujillo ME, García-Mireles GA. Gamification and SQL: An empirical study on student performance in a database course. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE). 2020; 21; 1: 1-29. 10.1145/3427597</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris BJ, Dragovich C, Todaro R, Balci S, Dalton E. Comparing badges and learning goals in low-and high-stakes learning contexts. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2019; 31: 573-603. 10.1007/s12528-019-09228-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murillo-Zamorano LR, López Sánchez JÁ, Godoy-Caballero AL, Bueno Muñoz C. Gamification and active learning in higher education: Is it possible to match digital society, academia and students' interests?. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2021; 18: 1-27. 10.1186/s41239-021-00249-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliveira, W, Pastushenko, O, Rodrigues, L, Toda, A. M, Palomino, P. T, Hamari, J, & Isotani, S. (2021). Does gamification affect flow experience? A systematic literature review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09942. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.09942</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekrun R. The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review. 2006; 18: 315-341. 10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelling, N. (2011). The (short) prehistory of gamification, funding startups (& other impossibilities). Journal of Nano Dome. Retrieved from https://nanodome.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/the-shortprehistory-of-gamification/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perttula, A, Kiili, K, Lindstedt, A, & Tuomi, P. (2017). Flow experience in game based learning—A systematic literature review. https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v4i1.151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Philpott A, Son JB. Leaderboards in an EFL course: Student performance and motivation. Computers & Education. 2022; 190: 104605. 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Recabarren M, Corvalán B, Villegas M. Exploring the differences between gamer and non-gamer students in the effects of gamification on their motivation and learning. Interactive Learning Environments. 2021. 10.1080/10494820.2021.1933543</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rivera ES, Garden CLP. Gamification for student engagement: A framework. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2021; 45; 7: 999-1012. 10.1080/0309877X.2021.1875201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenthal R. Meta-analysis: A review. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1991; 53; 3: 247-271. 10.1097/00006842-199105000-00001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sailer M, Homner L. The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. 2019. 10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sailer M, Sailer M. Gamification of in-class activities in flipped classroom lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2021; 52; 1: 75-90. 10.1111/bjet.12948</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanchez DR, Langer M, Kaur R. Gamification in the classroom: Examining the impact of gamified quizzes on student learning. Computers & Education. 2020; 144: 103666. 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103666</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schultz K, Klein M, Sucharew H, McDonald J, DeBlasio D, Cooperstein E, Poynter S, Huggins J, Real FJ. The impact of a gamified curriculum using kahoot! On musculoskeletal knowledge and skill acquisition among pediatric residents. Academic Pediatrics. 2022; 22; 8: 1265-1270. 10.1016/j.acap.2022.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schürmann L, Quaiser-Pohl C. Digital badges affect need satisfaction but not frustration in males in higher education. Computers & Education. 2022; 182: 104484. 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104484</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sitra O, Katsigiannakis V, Karagiannidis C, Mavropoulou S. The effect of badges on the engagement of students with special educational needs: A case study. Education and Information Technologies. 2017; 22: 3037-3046. 10.1007/s10639-016-9550-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stansbury JA, Earnest DR. Meaningful gamification in an industrial/organizational psychology course. Teaching of Psychology. 2017; 44; 1: 38-45. 10.1177/0098628316677645</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan JW, Chong DKS, Ng KB, Car LT, Mogali SR. Rehearsal‐based digital serious boardgame versus a game‐free e‐learning tool for anatomical education: Quasi‐randomized controlled trial. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2023; 16; 5: 830-842. 10.1002/ase.2286</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tasadduq M, Khan MS, Nawab RM, Jamal MH, Chaudhry MT. Exploring the effects of gamification on students with rote learning background while learning computer programming. Computer Applications in Engineering Education. 2021; 29; 6: 1871-1891. 10.1002/cae.22428</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trevino LK, Webster J. Flow in computer-mediated communication: Electronic mail and voice mail evaluation and impacts. Communication Research. 1992; 19; 5: 539-573. 10.1177/009365092019005001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turan Z, Avinc Z, Kara K, Göktas Y. Gamification and education: Achievements, cognitive loads, and views of students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. 2016; 11; 7: 64-69. 10.3991/ijet.v11i07.5455</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ugur-Erdogmus F, Çakır R. Effect of gamified mobile applications and the role of player types on the achievement of students. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2022; 60; 4: 1063-1080. 10.1177/07356331211065679</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Roy R, Zaman B. Need-supporting gamification in education: An assessment of motivational effects over time. Computers & Education. 2018; 127: 283-297. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, A. I, & Lieberoth, A. (2016). The effect of points and audio on concentration, engagement, enjoyment, learning, motivation, and classroom dynamics using Kahoot. In European conference on games based learning (Vol. 20). Academic Conferences International Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Werbach K, Hunter D. In for the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. 2012; Wharton Digital Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xia LX. Several basic issues of meta-analysis methods. Journal of Shanxi Normal University Social Science Edition. 2005; 32; 3: 5. 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5957.2005.03.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie, Y. R.& Li, K. D. (2006). Foundations of Research Methods in Educational Technology. Higher Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang JM, Yang WD, Wu CC, Pi ZL. Do teacher gestures in instructional videos work?—A meta-analysis based on 40 experimental and quasi-experimental studies from 2000–2021. Modern Distance Education Research. 2022; 34; 1: 12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang Q, Lian L, Zhao J. Developing a gamified artificial intelligence educational robot to promote learning effectiveness and behavior in laboratory safety courses for undergraduate students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2023; 20; 1: 18. 10.1186/s41239-023-00391-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yildirim I. The effects of gamification-based teaching practices on student achievement and students' attitudes toward lessons. The Internet and Higher Education. 2017; 33: 86-92. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zainuddin Z. Students' learning performance and perceived motivation in gamified flipped-class instruction. Computers & Education. 2018; 126: 75-88. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang M, Ran C, Zhang F. A meta-analysis of the impact of gamified online education on learning effectiveness. Library Tribune. 2022; 5: 130-139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao J, Hwang GJ, Chang SC, Yang QF, Nokkaew A. Effects of gamified interactive e-books on students' flipped learning performance, motivation, and meta-cognition tendency in a mathematics course. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2021; 69: 3255-3280. 10.1007/s11423-021-10053-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zheng JJ. A review of questionnaire survey method studies. Theoretic Observation. 2014; 10: 31-32</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zuo T, Birk MV, Van Der Spek ED, Hu J. The effect of fantasy on learning and recall of declarative knowledge in AR game-based learning. Entertainment Computing. 2023; 46: 100563. 10.1016/j.entcom.2023.100563</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Wei-Ang Dai; Wei Xu and Qian-Wen Xing</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Wei-Ang Dai Wei-Ang Dai is a master student in the College of Education at Zhejiang University of Technology. His research interests include collaborative learning and gamified learning.</p> <p>Wei Xu Wei Xu is an associate professor in the College of Education at Zhejiang University of Technology. Her research interests include technology-enabled educational innovation in the age of digital intelligence.</p> <p>Qian-Wen Xing Qian-Wen Xing is a master student in the College of Education at Zhejiang University of Technology. Her research interests include gamified learning.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref92"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1483889
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Gamified Learning Impact: A Meta-Analysis of Game Element Combinations on Students' Learning Outcomes
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wei-Ang+Dai%22">Wei-Ang Dai</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wei+Xu%22">Wei Xu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9042-213X">0000-0002-9042-213X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Qian-Wen+Xing%22">Qian-Wen Xing</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Technology+Research+and+Development%22"><i>Educational Technology Research and Development</i></searchLink>. 2025 73(4):2617-2643.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gamification%22">Gamification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Game+Based+Learning%22">Game Based Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Incidence%22">Incidence</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11423-025-10493-y
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1042-1629<br />1556-6501
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In educational settings, gamified learning integrates a variety of game elements to improve the learning experience, but a thorough analysis comparing different combinations of these elements is sparse. This meta-analysis consolidated data from 182 effect sizes across 37 randomized or quasi-randomized trials to assess the impact of gamified learning on student outcomes. Statistical analyses were conducted with gamified learning as the independent variable, learning outcomes as the dependent variable, and learning domain, learning stage, and intervention duration as moderating variables. The study aimed to evaluate the overall effect of gamified learning and to determine the most effective combinations of game elements. The results revealed a medium positive effect of gamified learning on learning outcomes (d = 0.566), with the "Rules/Goals + Challenge + Mystery" combination yielding the highest impact. And significant moderation was observed regarding the learning domain and the duration of the intervention. These findings offer valuable guidance for the design and application of gamified learning strategies, highlighting the need to consider moderating factors in educational practice.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1483889
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1483889
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11423-025-10493-y
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 2617
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Gamification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Game Based Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Incidence
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Gamified Learning Impact: A Meta-Analysis of Game Element Combinations on Students' Learning Outcomes
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wei-Ang Dai
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wei Xu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Qian-Wen Xing
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1042-1629
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1556-6501
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 73
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Technology Research and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1