ChapterPDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Gamification, the use of game elements in non-game settings, is more and more used in education to increase learner motivation, engagement, and performance. Recent research in the gamification field suggests that to be effective, the game elements should be tailored to learners. In this paper, we perform an in-depth literature review on adaptive gamification in education in order to provide a synthesis of current trends and developments in this field. Our literature review addresses 3 research questions: (1) What are the current kinds of contributions to the field? (2) What do the current contributions base their adaptation on, and what is the effect of this adaptation on the gamified system? (3) What is the impact of the adaptive gamification, and how is this impact measured? We also provide future research guidelines in the form of three needs that should be fulfilled for exploring this field.
Content may be subject to copyright.
HAL Id: hal-02185634
Submitted on 16 Jul 2019
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entic research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diusion de documents
scientiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
Adaptive gamication in education: A literature review
of current trends and developments
Hallifax Stuart, Audrey Serna, Jean-Charles Marty, Elise Lavoué
To cite this version:
Hallifax Stuart, Audrey Serna, Jean-Charles Marty, Elise Lavoué. Adaptive gamication in educa-
tion: A literature review of current trends and developments. European Conference on Technology
Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL), Sep 2019, Delft, Netherlands. �hal-02185634�
Adaptive gamification in education: A literature
review of current trends and developments
Stuart Hallifax1[0000000227439884] , Audrey Serna2[0000000314689761] ,
Jean-Charles Marty3[0000000318238415], and Elise
1University of Lyon, University Jean Moulin Lyon 3, iaelyon school of Management,
CNRS, LIRIS UMR5205 F-69621
2INSA de Lyon - CNRS, LIRIS UMR5205 F-69621
3Universit´e de Savoie Mont Blanc - CNRS, LIRIS UMR5205 F-69621
Abstract. Gamification, the use of game elements in non-game settings,
is more and more used in education to increase learner motivation, en-
gagement, and performance. Recent research in the gamification field
suggests that to be effective, the game elements should be tailored to
learners. In this paper, we perform an in-depth literature review on adap-
tive gamification in education in order to provide a synthesis of current
trends and developments in this field. Our literature review addresses 3
research questions: (1) What are the current kinds of contributions to
the field? (2) What do the current contributions base their adaptation
on, and what is the effect of this adaptation on the gamified system? (3)
What is the impact of the adaptive gamification, and how is this impact
measured? We also provide future research guidelines in the form of three
needs that should be fulfilled for exploring this field.
Keywords: Gamification
1 Introduction
Gamification, defined as the use of game elements in non-game contexts [12],
has been used for close to ten years in educational settings to increase learner
performance, motivation, or engagement [1,24,27]. Recent studies conducted in
other contexts such as health [33] and sport [26] on the effects of gamification
show that to be effective, gamification should be tailored to users. In educa-
tion, research on adaptation has mainly concerned educational content and its
adaptation to learners and context. It is a well explored research topic [8] that
has been shown to be effective. Adaptive gamification in education attempts to
leverage both of these concepts in order to provide a better learner experience.
It is therefore important to take a step back and analyse how game elements
can be adapted to learners in educational contexts. In this paper, we review the
research on adaptive gamification in education and present the results of our
analysis. In order to examine the current state of research in this field, and to
2 S. Hallifax et al.
understand how adaptive gamification is applied in education, we performed a
literature review based on twenty papers. Through our review, we highlight the
advances in the field and limitations that need to be addressed. Our review aims
to answer the following questions:
What are the current kinds of contributions to the field of adaptive gamifica-
tion in education? We distinguish three kinds of contributions: 1) preliminary
research on recommendations for game elements adapted to learner profiles,
2) technical contributions on architectures that have not been tested yet and
3) studies that look at the impact of adaptive gamification that make use
of such architectures, and that provide valuable results into this research
approach. The analysis of these three contribution types show the maturity
of this field.
What do the current contributions base their adaptation on, and what is
the effect of this adaptation on the gamified system? We clearly distinguish
static (i.e. initial) adaptation and dynamic adaptation, that rely on different
kinds of information, such as player types or interaction traces.
What is the impact of the adaptive gamification and how is this impact
measured? We identify studies conducted on short and on long terms, as
results obtained may depend on the duration. We also distinguish studies
according to the adaptation mechanism used (static or dynamic).
In this paper we first present our literature review process in section 2. Then,
in section 3we present three parts, each part being dedicated to a research ques-
tion. We finally provide future directions for research in this field in section 4,
by pointing out three needs that future research in this field should aim to re-
solve: the need for richer learner models, the need to explore different adaptation
methods, and the need for more structured studies.
2 Literature review process
Our structured literature review process was based on the guidelines and pro-
cesses described in [38,39]. First, we defined our review scope, by specifying our
research questions and therefore explicating our search query (we explain this
more in detail in section 2.1). Then, we ran our search query and filtered the
papers that did not fit our review scope (see section 2.2).
2.1 Defining our review scope
We are interested in the current state of adaptive gamification in education re-
search. We studied what exactly is adapted, and what characteristics or variables
are used to tailor learner experience. This lead us to define our three research
questions. We then clearly defined our search terms, as to cover the topic of
adaptive gamification in education. More specifically we used the search query:
(gamif*) AND (learning OR education OR teaching) AND (adapt* OR tailor*
OR personali*)
Adaptive gamification in education 3
The first part of our query (i.e. gamif*) was used to capture all terms
that start with “gamif” (i.e. gamification, gamified etc.). Note that the queries
“gamif*” and “gamif” were used depending on the capabilities of the search en-
gines used as some allowed for wildcard characters and others not. After testing
different permutations of “teaching words” we settled on “Learning” “Educa-
tion” and “Teaching” (when we added alternatives such as “learn” or “learner”
the result count did not change, so we stuck with a more focused approach).
Finally for the adaptive part, we had a similar reasoning as with “gamif”. The
three base words (“adapt”, “tailor” and “personali”) allowed us to capture the
different keywords used to describe these works (and also allow for regional vari-
ants such as the British “personalised” versus the American ”personalized”).
2.2 Paper search & filter
We ran our search query on the major scientific digital libraries (ACM, IEEE,
Science Direct, Springer) and Google Scholar. Due to the fairly large nature of
our search query, we received a large number of initial hits (370 papers, see table
1), which lead to a rigorous filtration process in order to remove false hits.
Table 1. Number of papers before and after content filtering. The number of papers
excluded is given for each filtration step.
Filtration step Source
ACM IEEE Science Direct Springer Google Scholar
Keyword query 64 94 17 35 160
Removed - format 18 8 1 2 49
Removed - scope 41 79 13 26 74
Removed - duplicate 2 1 1 1 34
Final count 3 6 2 6 3
Papers were first reviewed by scanning the keywords and title, then the ab-
stract, and finally the full text if the paper was not excluded from the previous
two steps. Papers were then excluded for the following reasons:
Format: Results that were either abstracts, preview content, posters or work-
shop papers were removed. We made this decision so that we only studied
mature works. Finally, we also removed papers that were not in English
(many of the results from Google Scholar had English abstracts or titles,
but the rest of the paper is in another language).
Scope: Here we analysed the content discussed in the papers. Papers were
excluded due to scope because they did not specifically deal with adaptive
gamification in learning. For example papers that discussed adaptive gami-
fication for health or sport were removed.
Duplicates: A few references were found in multiple databases, as some of
the databases contain references to papers that are cited by papers that
4 S. Hallifax et al.
they publish. Furthermore some of the papers found were extended versions
of previous papers. The non extended versions were therefore excluded.
After this filtering, we were left with a final total of twenty papers that we
included in our final analysis.
3 Literature analysis
We analysed the papers through the lenses of each of our three research questions.
We first identify the type of the contribution (section 3.1) to identify the degree of
maturity of the research field. We then present the different adaptation systems
by identifying what they are based on, and what they adapt (section 3.2). We
more particularly distinguish static and dynamic adaptation as they rely on
different mechanisms and different kinds of information. Finally we review the
results of studies on the impact of the adaptation of game elements on learners’
motivation and performances (section 3.3).
3.1 Contributions: Recommendations, Architectures and Studies
We examined the degree of maturity of the research field in light of two criteria.
First, we identified the contribution type of each reviewed paper (table 2). Sec-
ond, we reviewed the vocabulary used to describe the adapted content in each
Table 2. Type of each contribution: Recommendations, Architecture, or Study. These
types are described below.
Recommendations 8 [2,4,6,9,10,11,21,23]
Architecture 2 [22,29]
Study 10 [18,19,20,25,28,30,31,34,35,36]
Regarding the first criterion, we classify the papers into three types of con-
tributions that emerged from the review:
Recommendations: identification of game elements that would be adapted to
different categories or classes of learners, based on literature review, or gen-
eral surveys (8 papers). These recommendations correspond to preliminary
research and they have not been implemented in a system yet.
Architectures: adaptation engines based on existing theoretical works, that
have not yet been tested in real world situations (2 papers).
Adaptation studies: an adaptation engine, based on recommendations to
adapt game elements to learners, tested with learners through a real world
study (the combination of an adaptation architecture, theoretical recommen-
dations, and a real world study) (10 papers).
Adaptive gamification in education 5
Recommendations: We found two major categories of papers: papers that
base their recommendations on literature surveys, and those that base their rec-
ommendations on user surveys, or feedback. In the first category, Borges et al. [4]
review literature on ”player types” (archetypal reasons why users seek out game
experiences) and link these to learner roles and different game elements based
on the motivational aspects they provide. Challco et al. [6] also link motiva-
tional aspects with player types and game elements. ˇ
Skuta et al. [23] also use
player types, but link them to higher level game principles. They then propose
a matrix that associates game elements to player types based on how well each
game element implements the linked game principles. In the second category,
Denden et al. present three user studies, two based on a feedback after using
a non adapted gamified tool [9,11], and one based on a user survey [10] where
participants rated statements based on game elements in order to determine
their preference. Knutas et al. [21] analysed videos and interviews with learners
in a software engineering project to create clusters of learners based on their
interactions. These clusters were then linked to Bartle player types and relevant
game elements. Barata et al. [2] used a similar approach, creating four types of
learners based on their strategies during an online course. They then propose
different goals that could be provided to each of the learner types. These studies
serve to provide valuable information about what game elements learners might
prefer, but still need to be implemented and tested in a real adaptation system.
Architectures: We found only two papers that describe adaptation engine
architectures without any associated study. They present what the engine takes
into account, what it adapts, and how it adapts it. Kuntas et al. [22] describe
their process for designing an algorithm based personalised gamification system.
They detail learner characteristics on which they base the adaptation of some
game elements and the algorithm used to link the two. Monterrat et al. [29]
describe an architecture that presents game elements as ”epiphytes”, completely
separate from the learning content. They can therefore swap out game elements
as needed. They also propose a module that tracks learner interactions in order
to more finely adapt the game elements. They use a learner model that contains
data on learner (gender, age, player type), usage data, and environment data.
Studies: Half of the reviewed papers present studies that rely on an adaptive
gamification system in an educational setting [18,19,20,25,28,30,31,34,35,36].
These papers provide valuable results about the impact of adaptive gamification
on learner motivation and performance. We present them in section 3.3.
Vocabulary: Regarding the second criterion, we observed that the papers re-
viewed have a general consensus about the vocabulary used to describe the gami-
fication elements. Twelve of the papers reviewed [2,4,6,9,10,11,18,19,20,23,34,35]
used the term ”game element” to describe the low level implementations they
6 S. Hallifax et al.
use, such as points, levels, leaderboards, progress. Four papers from the same
authors [25,28,29,30] use the term ”game features” to present the same level
of implementation. Knutas et al. [21,22] use the terms ”game like elements”.
Mora et al. [31] present different gamification ”situations” (that combine differ-
ent game elements). We can therefore observe that the papers reviewed generally
agree on the term ”game element” to designate what is adapted.
In summary, we find the field of adaptive gamification in education to be
emergent, as there is a relatively low number of papers, that cover a wide variety
of contribution types. Regarding the kind of contributions, twelve papers (two
architectures and ten studies) take advantage of the ground work that the eight
recommendations papers lay out. Furthermore, we found the vocabulary used to
describe what is adapted to be quite stable, pointing towards a general consensus
among authors.
3.2 Information used for adaptation and its effect on game elements
In this section we analyse both 1) what information is considered for adaptation
(learner profile or activity) and 2) what the effect of the adaptation is (a change
of the game element, or a modification of how the game element works). Our
review analysis also allowed us to identify two major types of systems: static
systems, and dynamic systems (see table 3). In a static system, the adaptation
occurs once, usually before the learners start using the learning environment. In
a dynamic system, the adaptation happens multiple times during the learning
activity. We present our analysis according to these two categories as information
considered for adaptation and its effect clearly depends on them.
Table 3. Classification of the papers according to the kind of information used for
adaptation (user profile and/or activity), its effect (game element change or modifi-
cation of its functioning) and the kind of adaptation (static or dynamic). The learner
activity concerns either context based performance, or general behaviours. Some
papers use multiple types of information, and are present on multiple rows.
Static Dynamic
Change Modification Change Modification
Player Type 8 [4,6,23,25,28,30,31,36] 0 2 [21,29] 0
Personality 4 [9,11,18,35] 0 0 0
Expertise 1 [4] 0 0 0
Other 2 [4,10] 0 1 [29] 1 [22]
Activity Performance 0 0 0 2 [19,20]
Behaviours 0 0 2 [21,29]4[2,22,34]
Adaptive gamification in education 7
Static adaptation Systems that use static adaptation all work in a similar
manner. They base their adaptation on a learner profile, and adapt by changing
game elements. Learners’ profiles are identified, learners are sorted into different
categories based on these profiles, and different game elements are given to each
of the different categories of learners.
For learner profiles, the static adaptation systems generally use player types
and more rarely learner personality. Player types are archetypal reasons or mo-
tivations that explain why players play games. The papers reviewed used either
the Bartle Player types [3] (used in two papers [6,23]), the Brainhex player satis-
faction model [32] (used in three papers [25,28,36]), the Hexad player types [37]
(used in one paper [31]), or the categories of players described by Ferro et al. [14]
(used in one paper [4]). These different categorisations of players types describe
the reasons why players prefer different games. For example the Hexad player
classification describes ”Achievers” as people who “like to prove themselves by
tackling difficult challenges” [37]. The papers that use these player types typically
use the definitions of the different categories as a basis for their adaptation rules,
for example the Hexad classification suggests using badges and levels (amongst
others) for Achievers. Brainhex and Hexad provide a questionnaire to determine
a player profile, i.e a set of values that define how well the player fits each type.
Generally studies adapt using the dominant player type, i.e. the type that scores
the highest for a given learner. However, Mora at al. [31] question the precision
of only using the dominant type and propose to consider several dimensions of
the profile to tailor gamification.
For the personality traits, two of the five papers [9,11] used the Big Five
Factors personality traits [15]. Two papers used a user motivation questionnaire:
Roosta et al. [35] used the framework presented by Elliot et al. [13]; Hassan et
al. [18] used the questionnaire developed by Chen et al. [7]. Only a few static
systems used other kinds of user characteristics, such as gender and gaming
frequency [10], or learner role (tutor or tutee) [4].
Dynamic adaptation In dynamic adaptation, systems use learner activity to
adapt game elements, either alone or in combination with a learner profile.
Systems that only use learner activity make adaptation by modifying the
functioning of the game element. Two papers adapt the goals presented to learn-
ers. Paiva et al. [34] categorise all learner actions as either collaborative, gamifi-
cation, individual or social interactions; the system adapts the kind of goals the
learner receives according to the kind of actions they perform. Barata et al. [2]
propose a system that varies the goals and rewards given to learners based on
their behaviours, by distinguishing four types of learners: achievers, disheart-
ened, underachievers, and late bloomers (a learner is not fixed into a specific
category, as their behaviour may vary over time). Jaguˇst et al. [19] present two
dynamic adaptation situations, both of them using learner activity. In the first
situation, learners are timed in a maths quiz. Each time the learner gets a ques-
tion right, they are given less time for the next question, essentially increasing
the difficulty based on the learner’s performance. In the second situation, the
8 S. Hallifax et al.
learners are shown a target score that changes depending on how they respond
to questions: the more correct answers they give, the more the target score in-
creases. Kickmeier-rust et al. [20] change the types of badges presented to, and
feedback received by the learner based on the mistakes they make.
Two systems use both learner activity and profile. Monterrat et al. [29,30]
aim to modify the learners’ profile based on their activity. The system then uses
previously established static adaptation rules. When the learners’ profile changes
significantly, a different game element is given to the learner. The learner pro-
file is based on the Ferro player types in earlier versions of their work [29], and
in more recent work [30] they propose to use the Brainhex model (in [29] they
also use gender and age for adaptation). This is a straight forward way of im-
plementing dynamic adaptive gamification using static adaptation rules. The
systems proposed by Knutas et al. [21,22] use an algorithm that also uses learn-
ers’ profile and interactions. In both systems, they use the Hexad player profile,
and in the more recent one [22] they also use learner skills. In [21] they analysed
videos of students during project meetings and classified their interactions and
propose different game elements based on a combination of profile and interac-
tion types. They lay the ground rules for a dynamic adaptation based on learner
activity, but do not offer a method to detect these actions in real time. In [22]
they use learner chat activity and profile to provide personalised goals.
In summary, adaptation of game elements is made using two major categories
of information: static adaptation mainly relies on learners’ profile (mainly their
preferences and motivations), dynamic adaptation is based on how learners per-
form with regards to the learning content, or how the learners interact with the
system in general. The majority of systems then use this information to select
which game elements would be the most appropriate for learners. Only a few
(five) adapt by modifying how the game elements function.
3.3 Impact of adapted gamification on learners
We examined the impact of adaptive systems reported in the ”study” papers
identified in section 3.1. We found that the results could be split into two cat-
egories (see Table 4) those that show a general positive impact on learner’s
motivation or performance, and 2) those that show more mitigated results. We
also split the studies based on 1) whether they used a static or dynamic adap-
tation, and 2) the duration to investigate whether these factors influence the
impact of adaptive gamification on learners. We identified short studies as those
lasting less than two weeks, and long studies as lasting more than two weeks
(with an experimental process that is closer to real world learning practices).
Short studies We found two studies that lasted less than two weeks [19,20],
with both of these studies using a dynamic adaptation. All of these studies
reported positive results on learners. In [20], learners used the adaptive system
over two sessions, for a total possible time of thirty minutes. According to the
Adaptive gamification in education 9
Table 4. Impact of the reviewed studies. The numbers show how many studies are
present in each category.
Duration Static Dynamic
Positive Mitigated Positive Mitigated
Short 0 0 2 [19,20] 0
Long 4 [18,28,31,35]2[25,30] 0 1 [34]
authors the personalised system reduced the amount of errors that learners made.
Learners with the adaptive situation showed a larger decrease in errors made
in the second session when compared to learners that used the non adaptive
situation. In [19] Jagust et al. test two adaptive situations that learners used for
15 minutes each. In the first situation, the time learners had to answer questions
changed depending on how quickly they answered the previous question. In the
second situation, a target score changed depending on group performance. In
both situations the authors report an increase in learner performance (learners
completed more tasks than compared to a non gamified situation), although the
first situation caused a larger increase than the second one.
Long studies Seven of the reviewed studies lasted more than three weeks [18,
25,28,30,31,34,35]. Four studies showed generally positive results [18,28,31,35].
Roosta et al. [35] presented learners with a different game element based on
their motivation type. Learners used an online tool for one month. The authors
find that learners who had game elements that were suited to their motivation
type showed significant differences in motivation, engagement, and quiz results
when compared to learners who had randomly assigned game elements. They
used learner participation rates in the online activities as a metric to gauge mo-
tivation and engagement. Monterrat et al. [28] split learners into three different
groups: one group received game elements adapted to their Brainhex player type,
one group received counter-adapted game elements, and the third group received
random game elements. Learners were then free to use the learning environment
as they wanted over a three week period. The authors found that learners with
the adapted game elements spent more time using the learning tool that those
with the counter adapted elements. Hassan et al. [18] also showed a widely pos-
itive result in their study: learners who used game elements adapted to their
learning style showed a higher course completion rate than those who used ran-
dom game elements. This impact was also observed with learners’ self-reported
motivation using a questionnaire. Finally Mora et al. [31] also report a general
positive impact from their adaptation, with an increase in behavioural and emo-
tional engagement in learners, reported using a questionnaire that was given to
learners after using the tool. In this study, university learners were sorted into
different groups based on their Hexad profile (the groups contained users that
had similar Hexad profiles) and used a learning tool over a period of 14 weeks,
with each of the different Hexad groups receiving different game elements. How-
10 S. Hallifax et al.
ever, the authors themselves point out that these results are not significant due
to the small sample size.
The other three studies showed more mitigated results [25,30,34]. In Monter-
rat et al. [30] learners used the learning environment during 3 structured learning
sessions, each lasting 45 minutes set over a three week period. The learners were
middle school students, and used the learning environment as normal part of
their lessons. The results show that learners with counter-adapted game ele-
ments found their game elements to be more fun and useful than learners with
adapted or random elements. The authors performed a similar study reported
in [25], with adults who used the learning tool voluntarily. Learners were free
to use the learning tool over three weeks. They found little to no difference
for the majority of learners.They found that adaptation had an influence only
on the more invested learners: learners with adapted game elements showed less
amotivation (calculated using a questionnaire [16]). They did not find any differ-
ence in learner enjoyment for those particular learners. Paiva et al. [34] analysed
the usage data during the month after the introduction of tailored goals in their
learning tool. Learners received personalised goals to encourage them to increase
the number of specific learning actions they performed (for example learners who
performed a low number of individual learning actions were shown goals designed
to increase their number of individual learning actions). The authors found that
the social and collaborative goals were effective in increasing the number of re-
lated actions. However this effect was not observed with individual learning goals
(they do not observe an increase in the number of individual learning actions).
In summary we can see that shorter studies tend to show positive results from
adaptive gamification, where as the longer ones show more mitigated results. The
two short studies compared the impact of the adaptive gamified situation to a
non adaptive gamified situation, this does not allow us to understand if the
impact on learners is due to the adaptive nature of the gamified system, or due
to the introduction of a novel gamified system itself. With the longer studies,
we can assume that the novelty effect wears off, thus leading to more mitigated
results, as the static adaptation tested in the longer studies may not be precise
enough to take learner variations into. This novelty effect was also identified by
Hamari et al. in [17]. Furthermore, we can see that there is some contradictory
results from the different papers. [28] and [18] both report an increase in learner
motivation for all learners in their studies, whereas [25] only show an increase in
the more invested learners. This could be due to the nature of the metrics used
to gauge learner motivation. In [18] they use a questionnaire to establish this,
but [25,28] both use the time learners spent using the tool.
4 Future research agenda
Adaptive gamification in education is a novel and cutting edge research field,
that has been gaining in popularity in the past few years. In order to better
understand the current state of research in this field we performed an in-depth
Adaptive gamification in education 11
literature review that included twenty papers. Our analysis highlights a strong
theoretical base, with eight papers that present recommendations for game el-
ements, two that propose architectures that use these recommendations, and
ten papers that test various adaptation engines in real world learning settings.
We observed a variety of information used as a basis for adaptation, with both
static and dynamic approaches to adaptation. This shows that this is a wide and
diverse research field. In order to guide future research, we present three needs
that emerge from our literature analysis that should be addressed in the future.
4.1 The need for richer learner models
As pointed out in 3.2, half of the reviewed papers use learner player types to
adapt game elements. Generally they use the dominant player type identified
to classify the learners. Mora et al. [31] question this in their study and show
promising results when adapting to more than the dominant player type (al-
though as the authors state, their results are not significant). Furthermore very
few systems (only two) take learning characteristics into account, such as learner
expertise [4] or learning styles [18]. We believe that the mitigated results identi-
fied in 3.3 could be partly due to the complex nature of learner preferences that
are not represented in these simplified learner classifications. We therefore firstly
advise taking into account more complex learner profiles, that include more spe-
cific learning data, such as learner expertise, learner skills as well as learner
player types. Furthermore, learner activity should also be better explored as a
means for adapting game elements.
4.2 The need to explore different adaptation methods
We identified in section 3.2 how adaptation of gamification may affect the gam-
ified learning environment by changing the game element itself, or by modify-
ing its functioning. In their current state, most adaptation systems work in a
static way. We highly believe that there is more to be explored in the domain
of dynamic adaptation. For example the question of how and when a dynamic
adaptation presents itself to a learner still has to be addressed. If the change
brought on by the adaptation is not explained or presented to the learner in
a clear and understandable manner this could confuse and could distract the
learner from his/her learning activity. In the field of user interface adaptation
Bouzit et al. [5] show that change needs to be observable, intelligible, predictable
and controllable for the user. We believe therefore that research needs to be done
into how these concepts can be applied to educational settings.
4.3 The need for longer and more structured studies
As identified in section 3.3, we advise that future adaptive gamification studies
should aim for longer durations, as the results from short studies may be affected
by the novelty effect of introducing gamification and not the adaptive nature of
12 S. Hallifax et al.
the gamified system. Furthermore, studies should compare the effectiveness of
the adaptive system to that of a non adaptive system, which would also help
with identifying if the impact on learners is due to gamification in general or
to the adaptive nature. We also observed two ways for studies to quantify the
effectiveness of the tested systems: either as an impact on learner performance
or learner motivation. For learner performance it is fairly straightforward, using
metrics such as course completion rate [18], or test results [20]. However, for
learner motivation, the process was some-what more complex, as studies used
ad-hoc metrics to infer learner motivation (for example [25] used time spent on
the learning tool, [30,34] used learner feedback). This makes the comparison
of the results from different studies difficult to make. We therefore advise that
more research be performed into a more structured manner to estimate learner
motivation levels.
5 Conclusion
In this paper we presented an in depth literature review in order to better under-
stand the field of adaptive gamification in education. We identified that the field
is emergent, with a theoretical base that several studies in real world learning
settings build upon, and a general consensus on the language used. There is still
room for this field to grow and develop, especially regarding dynamic adapta-
tion that has been studied only once on a long term. We listed three needs that
should be fulfilled in future research, based on the shortcomings we have iden-
tified. First, we highlighted the need for richer learner models that adaptation
systems can use for adaptation. Second, dynamic adaptation methods should
be deepened to better adapt to learner behaviour. Third, there is a need for
longer and more structured studies in order to better understand and be able to
compare the impact of adaptive systems on learners.
6 Acknowledgements
This work is a part of the LudiMoodle project financed by the e-FRAN Pro-
gramme d’investissement d’avenir, operated by the Caisse des epots.
1. Attali, Y., Arieli-Attali, M.: Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test per-
formance? Computers & Education 83 (Apr 2015)
2. Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., Gon¸calves, D.: Gamification for smarter learning:
tales from the trenches. Smart Learning Environments p. 10 (2015)
3. Bartle, R.: Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of
MUD research (1), 19 (1996)
4. Borges, S.S., Mizoguchi, R., Durelli, V.H.S., Bittencourt, I.I., Isotani, S.: A link
between worlds: Towards a conceptual framework for bridging player and learner
roles in gamified collaborative learning contexts. In: Advances in Social Computing
and Digital Education. pp. 19–34. Springer (2016)
Adaptive gamification in education 13
5. Bouzit, S., Calvary, G., Coutaz, J., Chˆene, D., Petit, E., Vanderdonckt, J.: The
PDA-LPA design space for user interface adaptation. In: 2017 11th International
Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS). pp. 353–364
6. Challco, G.C., Moreira, D.A., Mizoguchi, R., Isotani, S.: An ontology engineering
approach to gamify collaborative learning scenarios. In: Collaboration and Tech-
nology. pp. 185–198. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer (2014)
7. Chen, K.C., Jang, S.J.: Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-
determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior 26(4), 741–752 (2010)
8. De Bra, P., Aerts, A., Berden, B., De Lange, B., Rousseau, B., Santic, T., Smits,
D., Stash, N.: AHA! The adaptive hypermedia architecture. In: Proceedings of the
fourteenth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia. pp. 81–84. ACM (2003)
9. Denden, M., Tlili, A., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M.: Educational gamification based
on personality. In: 2017 IEEE/ACS 14th International Conference on Computer
Systems and Applications (AICCSA). pp. 1399–1405 (2017)
10. Denden, M., Tlili, A., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M.: An investigation of the factors af-
fecting the perception of gamification and game elements. In: 2017 6th Interna-
tional Conference on Information and Communication Technology and Accessibil-
ity (ICTA). pp. 1–6 (2017)
11. Denden, M., Tlili, A., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M.: Does personality affect students’
perceived preferences for game elements in gamified learning environments? In:
18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). pp.
111–115. IEEE (2018)
12. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.: From game design elements to
gamefulness: defining gamification. In: Proceedings of the 15th international aca-
demic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments. pp. 9–15.
ACM (2011)
13. Elliot, A.J., Murayama, K.: On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique,
illustration, and application. Journal of educational psychology 100(3), 613 (2008)
14. Ferro, L.S., Walz, S.P., Greuter, S.: Towards personalised, gamified systems: An
investigation into game design, personality and player typologies. In: Proceedings
of The 9th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment: Matters of Life
and Death. pp. 7:1–7:6. ACM (2013)
15. Goldberg, L.R.: An alternative “description of personality”: the big-five factor
structure. Journal of personality and social psychology 59(6), 1216 (1990)
16. Guay, F., Vallerand, R.J., Blanchard, C.: On the assessment of situational intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (sims). Motivation and
emotion 24(3), 175–213 (2000)
17. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H.: Does gamification work? a literature review
of empirical studies on gamification. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences. pp. 3025–3034 (2014)
18. Hassan, M.A., Habiba, U., Majeed, F., Shoaib, M.: Adaptive gamification in e-
learning based on students’ learning styles. Interactive Learning Environments pp.
1–21 (2019)
19. Jaguˇst, T., Botiˇcki, I., So, H.J.: Examining competitive, collaborative and adaptive
gamification in young learners’ math learning. Computers & Education 125, 444–
457 (2018)
20. Kickmeier-Rust, M.D., Hillemann, E.C., Albert, D.: Gamification and smart feed-
back: Experiences with a primary school level math app. Int. J. Game-Based Learn.
4(3), 35–46 (2014)
14 S. Hallifax et al.
21. Knutas, A., Ikonen, J., Maggiorini, D., Ripamonti, L., Porras, J.: Creating student
interaction profiles for adaptive collaboration gamification design. Int. J. Hum.
Cap. Inf. Technol. Prof. 7(3), 47–62
22. Knutas, A., van Roy, R., Hynninen, T., Granato, M., Kasurinen, J., Ikonen, J.: A
process for designing algorithm-based personalized gamification. Multimedia Tools
and Applications (2018)
23. ˇ
Skuta, P., Kostol´anyov´a, K.: Adaptive Aproach to the Gamification in Education.
DIVAI 2018 (2018)
24. Landers, R.N., Armstrong, M.B.: Enhancing instructional outcomes with gamifica-
tion: An empirical test of the Technology-Enhanced Training Effectiveness Model.
Computers in Human Behavior (Sep 2015)
25. Lavou´e, E., Monterrat, B., Desmarais, M., George, S.: Adaptive gamification for
learning environments. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 12(1), 16–28
26. Lopez, C., Tucker, C.: Towards personalized adaptive gamification: A machine
learning model for predicting performance. IEEE Transactions on Games (2018)
27. 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 95 (2016)
28. Monterrat, B., Desmarais, M., Lavou´e, E., George, S.: A player model for adaptive
gamification in learning environments. In: Artificial Intelligence in Education. pp.
297–306. Springer (2015)
29. Monterrat, B., Lavou´e, E., George, S.: Toward an adaptive gamification system for
learning environments. In: Computer Supported Education. pp. 115–129. Springer
30. Monterrat, B., Lavou´e, E., George, S.: Adaptation of gaming features for motivat-
ing learners. Simulation & Gaming 48(5), 625–656 (2017)
31. Mora, A., Tondello, G.F., Nacke, L.E., Arnedo-Moreno, J.: Effect of personalized
gameful design on student engagement. In: IEEE Global Engineering Education
Conference (EDUCON). pp. 1925–1933 (2018)
32. Nacke, L.E., Bateman, C., Mandryk, R.L.: BrainHex: A neurobiological gamer
typology survey. Entertainment Computing 5(1), 55–62 (2014)
33. Orji, R., Nacke, L.E., DiMarco, C.: Towards personality-driven persuasive health
games and gamified systems. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (2017)
34. Paiva, R., Bittencourt, I.I., Ten´orio, T., Jaques, P., Isotani, S.: What do students
do on-line? modeling students’ interactions to improve their learning experience.
Computers in Human Behavior 64, 769–781 (2016)
35. Roosta, F., Taghiyareh, F., Mosharraf, M.: Personalization of gamification-
elements in an e-learning environment based on learners’ motivation. In: 8th In-
ternational Symposium on Telecommunications (IST). pp. 637–642 (2016)
36. dos Santos, W.O., Bittencourt, I.I., Vassileva, J.: Gamification Design to Tailor
Gamified Educational Systems Based on Gamer Types. In: SBGames 2018 (2018)
37. Tondello, G.F., Wehbe, R.R., Diamond, L., Busch, M., Marczewski, A., Nacke,
L.E.: The gamification user types hexad scale. In: Symposium on Computer-Human
Interaction in Play. pp. 229–243. ACM (2016)
38. Vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., Cleven, A.:
Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature
search process. In: ECIS Proceedings 161. vol. 9, pp. 2206–2217 (2009)
39. Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing
a literature review. MIS quarterly pp. xiii–xxiii (2002)
... Oliveira et al. [49] also highlight that most of the experiments do not provide sufficient statistical evidence. Several of these studies point out the fact that the impact depends on individual factors, such as the player profile [29,42,45,51] or learners' motivation for the learning task [5,26,40]. In addition to these individual static factors, Klock et al. [36] underline the importance of considering the dynamic and cyclical nature of gamification to improve user experience in the long-term. ...
... Tailored gamification is a current trend that consists in taking into account users' inter-individual differences when gamifying a system [6,55]. Several systematic literature reviews [29,36,49] show that tailored gamification studies have mainly explored ways to model the user profile. These studies usually rely on statistical techniques to correlate and test the most suitable game elements for each user characteristic. ...
... Regarding more specifically the field of education, tailored gamification has also gained interest because learners have different motivations when using a learning environment [30,45,70]. Recent meta-analyses on tailored gamification in education [5,29,49] confirm that most of the studies adapt gamification using player preferences thanks to statistical approaches. However, few studies proposed to adapt gamification to learners' behaviours, such as [53] using students' interactional profile or to learners' motivation, such as Roosta et al. [58] and Hassan et al. [32], who use various forms of user task motivation as a basis for adaptation. ...
Full-text available
Gamification has been widely used to increase learners’ motivation and engagement in digital learning environments. Various studies have highlighted the need to tailor gamification according to users’ characteristics. However, little is known about how tailoring gamification affects learners’ engagement when interacting with the environment. In this paper, we analyse learners’ behaviours in a large-scale field study in real-world classroom conditions over a six-week period. We identify three behavioural patterns and show at a global level that two of these patterns are influenced by adaptation. When we look at how learners’ engagement evolves over time, we see more differences in the adapted condition, specifically in the final lessons of the experiment. Globally learners’ engaged behaviours gradually decreased over time but tailoring the game elements to learners seemed to reduce this decrease or make it more stable, depending on the behavioural patterns.
... This study aims to perform a systematic literature review on educational gamification and game-based learning (GBL) applications in primary education, emphasizing Generation Alpha's characteristics. Although several recent literature reviews were conducted with regard to gamification and education (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017;Dos Santos et al., 2020;Hallifax et al., 2019;Saxena & Mishra, 2021;Swacha, 2021), none of these studies are explicitly focused on the influence of gamification on Generation Alpha or primary education sector. Section Two of the paper introduces Generation Alpha and its unique attributes, followed by types of gamification techniques and their importance to education. ...
... Learner profiles, student personalities, and knowledge expertise are a few parameters that can be tailored to maximize the learner's effectiveness. Educational motives of the said parameters are further classified under static and dynamic adaptation (Hallifax et al., 2019). Adaptive gaming techniques are proven to work better in some contexts compared to non-adaptive methods since these techniques constantly assess children's performance and adapt the difficulty of the learning tasks according to the level of the student (Vanbecelaere et al., 2020). ...
... However, long-term and large-scale experiments are essential for better observation of students' behavioral characteristics in a gamified learning environment (Zhao et al., 2021) and to explore long-term psychological effects on the learner based on the gamified learning process (Quintas et al., 2020). Furthermore, adaptive gamification strategies require more time to closely analyze the adaptation patterns of the learner (Hallifax et al., 2019). ...
Full-text available
ABSTRACT: Children born after 2010 are labelled as members of Generation Alpha, who currently pursue their primary education. Gamification and game-based learning methodologies have gained popularity in the global education sector in the recent past. The goal of this study is to investigate the present state of adopting gamification and game-based learning for primary education student cohorts, with the aid of recent peer-reviewed research publications. By employing a systematic mapping design, reviewed paper results are categorized and further evaluated in relation to the attributes such as type of gamification, game mechanics and elements used, evaluation context, type of experimental outcome, gamified academic subject area, and type of application. With the aid of review results, this study proposes a mapping of gamification learning mechanics, suited to address Generation Alpha traits. It also recommends future research directions, which include investigating the realistic learning preferences of Generation Alpha, the need for designing novel educational game elements and adaptive gamification learning strategies, and the importance of long-term studies with diverse learner samples. The findings of this study will support prospective stakeholders, such as researchers, educators, parents, and educational policymakers, to utilize gamification approaches effectively in educating Generation Alpha.
... The phenomenon of gamification, which involves incorporating game features into contexts not traditionally associated with games, is currently garnering heightened interest in education. Using gamification in educational settings enhances student motivation, engagement, and performance, as highlighted by Hallifax et al. (2019). ...
... The emerging concept known as adaptive gamification entails customizing game elements to suit learners' unique needs and characteristics within a specific domain. This approach recognizes the diversity in student preferences and learning styles with the overarching goal of delivering tailored learning experiences to maximize engagement and enhance educational outcomes (Hallifax et al., 2019). Nevertheless, it is worth noting that a comprehensive study investigating the influence of gamification components on the educational process remains absent in the literature (Alhammad & Moreno, 2018). ...
Full-text available
The primary goal of using games and gamification in education is to enhance both the effectiveness and enjoyment of the learning process. ⮚ Games and gamification can substantially increase students' engagement by tapping into their inherent motivation. ⮚ These techniques have shown effectiveness in making the learning process more appealing and meaningful. ⮚ These techniques have shown significant effectiveness in making the learning process more appealing and meaningful. ⮚ Four primary categories of individuals engaged in gameplay are described: killers (competitive), achievers (goal-oriented), socializers (emphasis on interaction), and explorers (inclination towards exploration). ⮚ Integrating games and gamification in educational settings is proposed to enhance student motivation and engagement.
... Systematic reviews have also been conducted in the domain of education. Here, Hallifax et al. [7] focused on the use of adaptive gamification. They summarize the current trends and developments in the field, with a special focus on the types of research being conducted, the factors being used for adaptation, and the impact of adaptive gamification and its measurement. ...
Full-text available
We lack a shared and detailed understanding in gamification of what game elements are. To address this, we provide a scoping review of the last five years of gamification research, focusing primarily on how game elements have been applied and characterized. We retrieved the definitions of game elements from 280 research papers, conducted a content analysis, and identified their features. On the basis of this information, we provide responses regarding the frequently cited game elements, whether they are consistently characterized in the literature, and the frequently stated features of these elements. Our research has identified 15 game elements in the literature, with points, badges, and leaderboards being the most prevalent. As a first step toward clear definitions, we suggest a set of properties to characterize these game elements. The results of our review contribute to the formation of a consensus among gamification scholars about the application and definition of game elements.
... O fato de ter havido a necessidade de modificar a gamificação inicialmente implementada, (devido ao fato de alguns estudantes se sentiram em uma competição excessiva dentro do sistema educacional), nos leva a crer que a gamificação, ao ser implementada deve considerar as características individuais dos usuários (Martins, 2018;Hallifax et al., 2019;Nascimento et al., 2021a;Oliveira et al., 2022b). Existem ainda relatos na literatura (Denden et al., 2017;Denden et al., 2018) de que por exemplo, de acordo com o gênero dos usuários, alguns elementos são mais facilmente percebidos, ou fazem com que o usuário seja mais sensível aos efeitos de um particular conjunto de elementos de jogos do que a outro. ...
Full-text available
Estudos recentes apontam a gamificação como um recurso capaz de aumentar a motivação e o engajamento dos estudantes em ambientes educacionais. No entanto, um importante desafio atual é entender como a gamificação implementada é percebida pelos usuários finais. Para enfrentar esse desafio, nessa pesquisa, conduzimos um estudo observacional (transversal, descritivo e temporalmente prospectivo) analisando a percepção de 61 estudantes de pós-graduação sobre a gamificação implementada em um sistema educacional gamificado (utilizado por 23 meses) bem como, quais os efeitos psicológicos e comportamentais da gamificação nos estudantes. Os principais resultados indicam que i) os estudantes tiveram percepções diferentes dos elementos de gamificação implementados no sistema e ii) apresentam diferentes efeitos psicológicos e comportamentais positivos decorrentes da gamificação. Os resultados do estudo contribuem especialmente para as áreas de tecnologias educacionais e gamificação em educação, fornecendo insights relacionados ao design de sistemas educacionais gamificados.
... Em que os games seriam experiências voluntárias sedutoras ao ponto dos usuários não se desconectarem no meio de uma partida (Xu, 2011), influenciando na permanência e atenção a essas atividades de entretenimento. No contexto da educação, a gamificação tem sido bem explorada nos últimos anos, analisando a adaptabilidade desses elementos e a experiência dos alunos (Hallifax et al., 2019). ...
Este estudo teve como objetivo analisar de que maneiras as estratégias da gamificação tem impactado no engajamento de uso em aplicativos de serviços digitais. A partir de uma modelagem de equações estruturais, aplicou-se um questionário online com usuários de aplicativos gamificados, obtendo uma amostra com 109 respondentes. Os resultados demonstraram que a expectativa de desempenho, influência social, intenção de uso e uso afetam positivamente na intenção comportamental a utilização das plataformas gamificadas, ao contrário das condições facilitadoras e expectativa de esforço. Este estudo contribui para maior compreensão e aprimoramento de pesquisas relacionadas à eficácia da gamificação em aplicativos móveis.
Full-text available
In education, the term “gamification” refers to of the use of game-design elements and gaming experiences in the learning processes to enhance learners’ motivation and engagement. Despite researchers’ efforts to evaluate the impact of gamification in educational settings, several methodological drawbacks are still present. Indeed, the number of studies with high methodological rigor is reduced and, consequently, so are the reliability of results. In this work, we identified the key concepts explaining the methodological issues in the use of gamification in learning and education, and we exploited the controverses identified in the extant literature. Our final goal was to set up a checklist protocol that will facilitate the design of more rigorous studies in the gamified-learning framework. The checklist suggests potential moderators explaining the link between gamification, learning, and education identified by recent reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses: study design, theory foundations, personalization, motivation and engagement, game elements, game design, and learning outcomes.
The diversification of pedagogic tools remains essential for a fruitful learning experience among the Gen Z students by embedding technology such as gamification in learning. Recent literature has discussed the acquisition of 21st century skills and the educational challenges generally faced by Asian students due to their cultural traits. Against this background, the findings of this study open reflections relating to the benefit of gamification in acquiring 21st century skills. The objective of this chapter is to identify whether gamification is a suitable pedagogic tool among Malaysian law students in order to support the acquisition of 21st century skills. The respondents are from Year 1 and Year 2 of a three-year Bachelor of Laws degree with the majority being Malaysian students. The data collected showed that gamification helps in the acquisition of 21st century skills. Evidently, it showed that gamification can be a suitable alternative pedagogic tool to support the students to learn skills such as critical thinking, creativity, innovation, leadership, or communication.
Full-text available
The gamification approach is often used in educational settings, with widely varying results on learner motivation. A new trend emerged these last years on adaptive gamification to fit learners’ preferences for game mechanics, but little is known on how the adaptation of different game elements impacts different types of learner motivation. In this paper, we propose to investigate in depth the effects of adaptive gamification on a continuum ranging from intrinsic motivation for knowledge to amotivation, by assigned game element. We conducted a field study involving 121 students (aged between 13-15 years old) from secondary schools during four to six weeks, to compare the impact of adapted game elements to randomly assigned ones. This approach allowed us to reveal the following findings: (1) the impact of gamification (either adapted or not) is different when considering each type of motivation, (2) the effects of the use of the gamified environment were only observed after five lessons, (3) the adaptation of the game elements seems to reinforce their effects on learners’ motivation, and (4) each game element had specific effects on different types of motivation: while adapted Avatar and Timer had both some positive and negative effects, Progress had mainly detrimental ones.
Full-text available
Personalization is an upcoming trend in gamification research, with several researchers proposing that gamified systems should take personal characteristics into account. However, creating good gamified designs is effort intensive as it is and tailoring system interactions to each user will only add to this workload. We propose machine learning algorithm -based personalized content selection to address a part of this problem and present a process for creating personalized designs that allows automating a part of the implementation. The process is based on Deterding’s 2015 framework for gameful design, the lens of intrinsic skill atoms, with additional steps for selecting a personalization strategy and algorithm creation. We then demonstrate the process by implementing personalized gamification for a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. For this demonstration, we use the gamification user type hexad for personalization and the heuristics for effective design of gamification for overall design. The result of the applied design process is a context-aware, personalized gamification ruleset for collaborative environments. Lastly, we present a method for translating gamification rulesets to machine-readable classifier algorithm using the CN2 rule inducer.
Full-text available
Personalized adaptive gamification has the potential to improve individuals' motivation and performance. Current methods aim to predict the perceived affective state (i.e., emotion) of an individual in order to improve their motivation and performance by tailoring an application. However, existing methods may struggle to predict the state of an individual that it has not been trained for. Moreover, the affective state that correlates to good performance may vary based on individuals and task characteristics. Given these limitations, this work presents a machine learning method that uses task information and an individual's facial expression data to predict his/her performance on a gamified task. The training data used to generate the adaptive-individual-task model is updated every time new data from an individual is acquired. This approach helps to improve the model's prediction accuracy and account for variations in facial expressions across individuals. A case study is presented that demonstrates the feasibility and performance of the model. The results indicate that the model is able to predict the performance of individuals, before completing a task, with an accuracy of 0.768. The findings support the use of adaptive models that dynamically update their training dataset and consider task information and individuals' facial expression data.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
One of the main contemporary challenges in the field of computers and education is to provide gamified educational systems tailored according to the students' gamer types to be most effective than traditional counter-tailored gamified educational systems in terms of students' learning aspects. In order to start to solve this problem, we proposed an approach to tailor gamified educational systems based on the students' gamer types. An instance of the proposed approach was implemented and an empirical experiment with 121 elementary students was conducted in order to comparatively evaluate the tailored and the counter-tailored versions of the system in terms of students' concentration and flow experience. The main results indicate that for some gamer types the tailored system was more effective, however, in some cases, the flow experience and concentration was larger in the counter-tailored version of the system, surprising and contradicting the expectation of recent theoretical studies and making room for further studies in this field. A second empirical experiment was conducted in order to identify which are the most suitable gamification element for each gamer type, allowing us to provide a guideline for tailor gamified educational systems based on students' gamer types.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
One of the main contemporary challenges in the field of computers and education is to provide gamified educational systems tailored according to the students' gamer types to be most effective than traditional counter-tailored gamified educational systems in terms of students' learning aspects. In order to start to solve this problem, we proposed an approach to tailor gamified educational systems based on the students' gamer types. An instance of the proposed approach was implemented and an empirical experiment with 121 elementary students was conducted in order to comparatively evaluate the tailored and the counter-tailored versions of the system in terms of students' concentration and flow experience. The main results indicate that for some gamer types the tailored system was more effective , however, in some cases, the flow experience and concentration was larger in the counter-tailored version of the system, surprising and contradicting the expectation of recent theoretical studies and making room for further studies in this field. A second empirical experiment was conducted in order to identify which are the most suitable gamification element for each gamer type, allowing us to provide a guideline for tailor gamified educational systems based on students' gamer types.
Full-text available
This paper presents the results of an empirical study conducted on three different types of gamified learning activities—namely competitive, collaborative, and adaptive—in lower primary mathematics classes. The participants were students from two second-grade and one third-grade classes who used tablet computers and digital learning lessons for learning mathematics. The study included a non-gamified and competitive, adaptive, and collaborative gamified conditions, which were integrated into lesson plans. The collected log data were used to calculate the changes in performance levels through the dimensions of task completion and time under each condition, and the data were further analyzed and compared across conditions. The quantitative analysis results were triangulated with interview data from the students. Overall, the results show that gamified activities contributed to increased student performance levels in math learning. Significantly higher performance levels appeared in a gamified condition combining competition, a narrative, and adaptivity with individual performance game elements. Although the highest performance levels appeared in conjunction with the most incorrect attempts by the students, the total number of correct attempts was unaffected. Our findings suggest that whether gamification works or not is not the result of individual game elements but rather the consequence of their balanced combination.
Full-text available
In spite of their effectiveness, learning environments often fail to engage users and end up under-used. Many studies show that gamification of learning environments can enhance learners' motivation to use learning environments. However, learners react differently to specific game mechanics and little is known about how to adapt gaming features to learners' profiles. In this paper, we propose a process for adapting gaming features based on a player model. This model is inspired from existing player typologies and types of gamification elements. Our approach is implemented in a learning environment with five different gaming features, and evaluated with 266 participants. The main results of this study show that, amongst the most engaged learners (i.e. learners who use the environment the longest), those with adapted gaming features spend significantly more time in the learning environment. Furthermore, learners with features that are not adapted have a higher level of amotivation. These results support the relevance of adapting gaming features to enhance learners' engagement, and provide cues on means to implement adaptation mechanisms.
With the removal of the barriers of time and distance, E-learning platforms have attracted millions of learners, but these platforms are experiencing a significant drop-out ratio. One of the primary reasons for this problem is the lack of motivation among the learners because of the similar learning experience provided to them despite their varying learning styles. Different researchers have introduced gamification as a solution for students’ engagement. The technique has improved engagement levels a bit, but it is not as useful as it was expected to be. One of the primary problems with gamification elements is their inability to induce intrinsic motivation among learners. To target this issue, we have proposed a framework that identifies the learning style of students based on their interactions with the system and provides an adaptive gamification experience according to their identified learning dimensions. The results of the experiments show that the motivation of learners increases by 25%, and the drop-out ratio is reduced by 26%.