From theory to practice: A systematic literature review of Gamified Flipped Learning in higher education

Abstract

Gamified Flipped Learning (GFL), a pedagogical approach that combines the methodology of flipped learning with gamification techniques, has gained increasing attention in recent years, particularly within the context of higher education. This systematic literature review aims to provide educators and researchers with a comprehensive understanding of how GFL has been implemented and with what results. Following the PRISMA guidelines, 26 studies were selected and analysed. The findings indicate that this research field is still evolving and exhibits a high degree of diversity, both in terms of implementation approaches and research methods. This high level of variability is indicative of the flexibility of the approach, but it also presents a challenge for educators wishing to implement it. In light of the aforementioned findings, a set of design principles derived from the analysis is proposed to guide effective GFL practice and assist educators in successfully adopting GFL strategies.

Full text

Italian Journal of Educational Technology
ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online
DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
https://ijet.itd.cnr.it
Copyright: © 2024 Author(s). This is an open access, peer-reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (https://www.fupress.com)
and distributed except where otherwise noted, under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 Licence for content and CC0 1.0 Universal for metadata.
From theory to practice: A systematic literature review of
Gamified Flipped Learning in higher education
Dalla teoria alla pratica: una revisione sistematica della letteratura sul Gamified
Flipped Learning nell'istruzione superiore
GIADA MARINENSIA, MATILDE DI LALLOA, GIANCARLO DE MATTEISA, RICCARDO PIZOLLIA,
MARC ROMERO CARBONELLB
A Link Campus University, Rome, Italy, g.marinensi@unilink.it*, m.dilallo@unilink.it,
giancarlo.dematteis@unilink.it, r.pizolli@unilink.it
B Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, mromerocar@uoc.edu
* Corresponding author
HOW TO CITE Marinensi, G., Di Lallo, M., De Matteis, G., Pizolli, R., & Carbonell, M. R. (2024). From
theory to practice: A systematic literature review of Gamified Flipped Learning in higher education. Italian
Journal of Educational Technology. Accepted Manuscript Online. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1355
ABSTRACT Gamified Flipped Learning (GFL), a pedagogical approach that combines the methodology of
flipped learning with gamification techniques, has gained increasing attention in recent years, particularly within
the context of higher education. This systematic literature review aims to provide educators and researchers with
a comprehensive understanding of how GFL has been implemented and with what results. Following the
PRISMA guidelines, 26 studies were selected and analysed. The findings indicate that this research field is still
evolving and exhibits a high degree of diversity, both in terms of implementation approaches and research
methods. This high level of variability is indicative of the flexibility of the approach, but it also presents a
challenge for educators wishing to implement it. In light of the aforementioned findings, a set of design
principles derived from the analysis is proposed to guide effective GFL practice and assist educators in
successfully adopting GFL strategies.
KEYWORDS Teaching/Learning Strategies; Gamification; Game Elements; Active Learning.
SOMMARIO Il Gamified Flipped Learning (GFL), ossia l’approccio pedagogico che combina la metodologia
del flipped learning con le tecniche di gamification, ha guadagnato una crescente attenzione negli ultimi anni, in

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
particolare nel settore dell'istruzione superiore. Questa revisione sistematica della letteratura intende offrire a
educatori e ricercatori una visione d’insieme di come il GFL sia stato implementato e con quali risultati.
Seguendo le linee guida PRISMA, un totale di 26 studi è stato selezionato e analizzato. I risultati indicano che
questo campo di ricerca è ancora in evoluzione e presenta un alto grado di diversità, sia in riferimento alle
modalità di implementazione che ai metodi di ricerca. Questo alto livello di variabilità è indicativo della
flessibilità dell'approccio, ma rappresenta anche una sfida per gli educatori che desiderano implementarlo. Alla
luce di questi risultati, vengono quindi proposte delle linee guida per supportare gli educatori ad adottare con
successo il GFL.
PAROLE CHIAVE Strategie di insegnamento/apprendimento; Gamification; Elementi di Gioco;
Apprendimento Attivo.
1. Introduction
The Bologna Declaration and the establishment of the European Higher Education Area
(EHEA) have been the driving forces behind the significant changes occurring in the university
environment in recent years, creating the conditions for a radical rethinking of teaching and
learning practices (López, 2017). This process is closely intertwined with another ongoing
revolution, digital transformation, driven by the increasingly pervasive diffusion of digital
technologies and network applications in all organisations. This transformation has been slow
in universities, often favouring traditional forms of teaching, until the advent of the COVID-19
pandemic which, by forcing the sudden overcoming of these resistances, has highlighted the
crucial role that digital technologies can play in teaching and learning processes (Rodríguez-
Abitia & Bribiesca-Correa, 2021).
However, people, particularly students and teachers, and not technologies, remain the
pivotal element in the digital transformation process ongoing in Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) (Gaebel et al., 2021). Therefore, digital technologies should be experimented with in
terms of their ability to support more student-centred approaches and active learning strategies.
Among the various active learning strategies (Misseyanni et al., 2018), flipped learning and
gamification have been widely applied at university level (Baig & Yadegaridehkordi, 2023;
Pelizzari, 2024) and have often been combined together to originate what is known as
gamification enhanced flipped learning or gamified flipped learning (GFL). The COVID-19
crises further accelerated the adoption of these approaches, due to the fact that the transition to
online learning highlighted the need for strategies that could foster student engagement and
motivation in virtual environments (Collado-Valero et al., 2021; Divjak et al., 2022).
1.1. Gamified flipped learning
Flipped learning, a pedagogical approach in which students' initial exposure to new
theoretical content occurs at home through self-paced learning, while class time is devoted to
collaborative learning activities such as problem solving, discussion, and creative tasks
(Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Brame, 2013; Talbert, 2017), has become increasingly popular
among educators due to its alignment with the preferences of contemporary learners and its

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
potential to foster deeper engagement and understanding (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Talbert,
2017).
At the same time, gamification, the integration of game elements into non-game contexts,
has gained attention as a way to motivate students and promote positive learning behaviours
(Deterding et al., 2011; Landers, 2014) especially at the Higher Education (HE) level (Irwanto
et al., 2023; Pelizzari, 2024). The design and evaluation of gamified learning interventions are
frequently grounded on the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Krath et al., 2021).
Several research studies have explored the combination of flipped learning and gamification
(Choi & Choi, 2021) reporting encouraging results, such as the positive impact of gamification
on student engagement in both out-of-class (Huang & Hew, 2018a) and in-class activities
(Zainuddin, 2018); the positive impact on the level of students’ learning outcomes (Hung, 2017;
Yildirim, 2017) and on their overall perceptions of the course (Hung, 2017).
1.2. Previous review studies
Two literature reviews have been conducted to systematise the existing findings in the field
of GFL. The first one was conducted by Ekici (2021), analysing a total of 22 research articles
published in academic journals between 2016 and 2019. This review encompassed GFL
experiences implemented across all educational levels. The second systematic literature review
was conducted by Smith et al. (2022), which examined 92 papers from journals and conferences
indexed in the Scopus database and published between 2015 and April 2021. This review had
a broader focus, incorporating both flipped learning experiences augmented with games and
those utilising gamification techniques.
1.3. Purpose of the study
Although both literature reviews made valuable contributions to enhancing researchers' and
practitioners’ understanding of GFL, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. Firstly,
the inclusion of studies conducted across all educational levels presents challenges in assessing
the effectiveness of the approach within specific educational settings and understanding its
impact on distinct target audiences. Additionally, the review conducted by Smith et al. (2022)
encompassed studies that examined both the combination of flipped learning with games and
the combination of flipped learning with gamification. However, designing and implementing
an educational game or a gamified intervention requires different activities, efforts, and
expertise from the teachers' perspective. Furthermore, the experience of students also differs
depending on whether games or gamification techniques are employed.
Hence, this literature review aims to narrow its focus on studies conducted exclusively
within the HE level, specifically examining the integration of flipped learning and gamification
(excluding studies involving serious games, commercial games, etc.). The ultimate objective is
to provide researchers and educators in HEIs with a comprehensive understanding of the
implementation and outcomes of GFL thus far. The review seeks to highlight the encountered
challenges and derive valuable insights from the existing literature. By doing so, it aims to offer
guidelines for instructors interested in adopting this approach and to researchers who aim to
further advance knowledge in this field.

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
2. Methodology
The process adopted to carry out this systematic review was based on the recommendations
of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020
statement (Page et al., 2021). The PRISMA guidelines, through a 27-item checklist, establish
an optimal process to guide the researcher in conducting a systematic literature review.
Accordingly, the systematic review process applied in this study consisted of the following
steps: Definition of research questions; Specification of eligibility criteria and sources of
information; Identification of search strategies; Study selection process; Data extraction and
synthesis.
2.1. Definition of research questions
Besides identifying the general characteristics of the analysed studies, the following
Research Questions (RQ) were defined to guide this literature review:
- (RQ1) Which game elements are implemented in GFL in HE?
- (RQ2) What are the challenges faced by HE teachers in the implementation of GFL?
- (RQ3) Which guiding principles can be derived from the analysed empirical studies to
inform the design of a GFL intervention in HE?
2.2. Specification of eligibility criteria and sources of information
For the selection of the studies to be included in the analysis, the following Inclusion
Criteria (IC) and Exclusion Criteria (EC) were specified:
- (IC1) Studies published in English (but not necessarily conducted in English).
- (IC2) Original research.
- (IC3) Studies that specifically used gamification in conjunction with flipped learning and
are based on empirical evidence.
- (IC4) Studies conducted at the HE level.
- (EC1) Articles published in the proceeding of a conference or in non peer-reviewed
journals, literature reviews, short papers, position papers or panels.
- (EC2) Full papers not available.
Taking into account the multidisciplinary nature of gamification, and in light of other recent
mapping and systematic reviews on educational gamification and flipped learning (Akçayır &
Akçayır, 2018; Bredow et al., 2021; Kalogiannakis et al., 2021; Krath et al., 2021; Manzano-
León et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2022) the scientific databases searched in this review included
those identified as relevant to psychology, education, gaming, technology, and social science:
ACM Digital Library; EBSCO (Business Source Complete, Communication & Mass Media
Complete, Teacher Reference Center); IEEE Xplore; Science Direct; Scopus; Web of Science.
2.3. Identification of search strategies
Having checked and tested the specific syntax required by each database selected, the
following search string was created through the combination of two basic boolean operators
(“AND” and “OR”), the parentheses and using “*” as a wildcard: “gamif* AND ((flipped OR
inverted) AND (class* OR learning OR education OR instruction OR teaching))”.
A decision was made to manually filter for the targeted level of education rather than include
a direct reference to 'higher education' in the search string, to ensure that studies which were

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
relevant, but did not explicitly mention 'higher education' in their titles, abstracts, or keywords,
were not overlooked.
The search string was employed for title, abstract, and author keywords search, without any
chronological filter. The search was conducted between March 1st and March 15th, 2023.
2.4. Study selection process
The initial search in all databases produced a total of 496 results. A first screening process
was carried out and resulted in 315 papers, after duplicates were removed with the help of
CADIMA software. The next stage of this review process was the removal of papers considered
not relevant, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria previously mentioned. An initial
screening was conducted by four researchers who independently reviewed titles and abstracts.
Before starting the selection process, a consistency check was performed using the CADIMA
software to measure inter-rater agreement. Each researcher assessed the same 30 titles and
abstracts independently, and the level of agreement was deemed 'fair,' with a kappa value of
0.41. Then, each title and abstract was reviewed by two researchers independently and if
inconsistencies in the rating decisions occurred, the respective reviewers were notified by the
CADIMA software and they had to resolve those conflicts. This process led to the exclusion of
160 articles. Two researchers assessed the full text of 155 remaining articles and discarded
another 130 articles.
Hence, 25 papers were included for data extraction, however, one of the papers
encompassed two separate studies, resulting in a total of 26 studies to be analysed (Table 1).
The selection process is illustrated in the following flow diagram (Figure 1).
Table 1. List of selected papers.
# Authors (Year) Journal Country
1
Ahmed & Asiksoy (2021)
Sustainability
Cyprus
2
Anane (2022)
Frontiers in education
UAE
3
Asiksoy & Canbolat (2021)
International Journal of Engineering
Pedagogy
Turkey
4
Aşıksoy (2018)
Quality & Quantity
Cyprus
5
Chen et al. (2022)
Sustainability
China
6
Durrani et al. (2022b)
Contemporary Educational Technology
UAE
7
Durrani, Al Naymat, et al. (2022a)
International Journal of Management
Education
UAE
8
Elzeky et al. (2022)
BMC Nursing
Egypt
9
Forndran & Zacharias (2019)
European Journal of Psysics
Brazil
10
Gómez-Carrasco et al. (2019)
Education Sciences
Spain
11
Gündüz & Akkoyunlu (2020)
SAGE Open
Turkey

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
12
Huang et al. (2019)
Interactive Learning Environments
Hong Kong
13
Huang & Hew (2018a)
Computers and Education
Hong Kong
14
Huang & Hew (2018b)
Computers and Education
Hong Kong
15
Hung (2018)
ELT Journal
Taiwan
16
Hung (2017)
Interactive Learning Environments
Taiwan
17
Kim & Kim (2022)
Healthcare
Korea
18
Ng & Lo (2023)
Education Sciences
China
19
Ng & Lo (2022)
Sustainability
China
20
Ozer et al. (2018)
International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning
Cipro
21
Recabarren et al. (2023)
Interactive Learning Environments
Chile
22
Ruiz (2021)
Journal of Spanish Language Teaching
Singapore
23
Sailer & Sailer (2021)
British Journal of Educational Technology
Germany
24
Yllana-Prieto et al. (2021)
Sustainability
Spain
25
Zainuddin et al. (2022)
Interactive Technology and Smart
Education
Indonesia
26
Zamora-Polo et al. (2019)
Education Sciences
Spain

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the article search and selection process.
2.5. Data extraction
Four researchers examined the data from all 26 studies included at the end of the selection
process. The analysis was performed by coding the data and assigning them to various
categories. These categories were initially established by two of the authors, drawing upon
existing literature. For instance, the classification of game elements in the selected studies was
based on the game element taxonomy proposed by Toda et al. (2019). Subsequently, the
categories were presented and discussed among the entire research team to ensure validation
and refinement. In the process of analysis, additional categories were introduced as deemed
necessary.

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
3. Results
3.1. General characteristics of the analysed studies
Although the search in academic databases was not limited to a specific time frame, it is
noteworthy that most of the studies have been published after 2020 (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Distribution of the studies per publication year.
Most of the studies reviewed (16 out of 26) were carried out in undergraduate programmes
(Figure 3).
Figure 3. Distribution of the studies per course level and subject area.
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
4
4
0 1 2 3 4 5
Health and welfare
Social sciences, journalism and information
Information and communication technologies
Engi neer ing, manuf ac tur ing a nd c onst r uct ion
Business administration and law
Education
Natural sciences, mathematics and statistics
Art s and huma niti es
Not specified
Postgraduate
Undergraduate

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
The rationale for favouring undergraduate courses is likely attributable to their usually
larger student population, as these allow researchers to have sufficient participants for their
investigations, especially in the context of quantitative and mixed methods research, the only
methodological approaches adopted among the selected studies. Indeed, half of the selected
studies employed a mixed-methods approach, while the other half used a quantitative approach.
In most of the studies (18 out of 26), the course was delivered in blended learning mode
(Figure 4). Blended learning can be defined as a combination of teaching strategies that
incorporates digital technologies into teaching practices, occupying an intermediate position
between fully online and fully face-to-face delivery modes (Wang et al., 2015); instead, hybrid
learning happens when online and in-person learning are offered at the same time and learners
can choose to attend online or in-person (Marey et al., 2022). The fully online delivery mode
(7 studies out of 26, 26.9%) was the only one adopted during the pandemic, due to the
restrictions imposed by the authorities.
Figure 4. Courses’ delivery mode.
Regarding how gamification is used, most of the analysed experiences apply gamification
only to specific course activities (21 out of 26) instead of applying it to the entire course
structure (5 out of 26) (Figure 5).

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
Figure 5. Gamified learning activities course coverage.
This review also focused on highlighting the variables on which the effect of the gamified
learning intervention was observed across the 26 included studies. An initial list of variables
based on the literature (Ekici, 2021) was adopted as a reference, but the final list was defined
through basic coding and discussion among researchers. The most frequently measured
variables were motivation (n=14), learning achievements (n=14), engagement (n=12) and
perception (n=11).
From the analysis of the studies, a synthesis of the reported results was also drawn (Table
2), based on the categories adopted by Smith et al. (2022) and Luo (2022).

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
Table 2. Reported results of the GFL interventions.
Reported results Definition # of studies
Positive
Improvement in the observed
variable(s) as a consequence of
implementing GFL
21
Negative
Adverse impact of GFL on the
observed variable(s)
0
Mixed Improvements in some variables
and adverse effects on others
mostly positive 4
equal positive and
negative
1
mostly negative 0
No effect 0
3.2. RQ1 – Game elements implemented in GFL
To identify the most used game elements in the selected studies, it was first necessary to
select a taxonomy of game elements to be adopted as a reference. Indeed, game elements have
been classified in many ways by different authors, but taking into account the context of this
study, it was decided to adopt the taxonomy provided by Toda et al. (2019), which was defined
with the specific aim of standardising the naming and the definition of game elements employed
for educational gamification.
Based on this taxonomy, the most frequently used game elements in the analysed studies
are points (n=23) and competition (n=22), specifically referring to the use of leaderboards,
followed by acknowledgements (n=11), in the forms of badges and trophies (Table 3).
Table 3. The most used game elements in GFL interventions.
Game elements # of studies
Point (e.g., experience points)
23
Competition. (e.g., player versus player battles, leaderboards)
22
Acknowledgement (e.g., badges, medals, trophies)
11
Cooperation (e.g., co-op missions, group challenges)
8
Progression (e.g., progress bars, maps, steps)
6
Level (e.g., character levels, skill level)
6
Time pressure (e.g., countdown, clock, timer)
6
Objectives (e.g., quests, missions, milestones)
6

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
Stats (e.g., health bar, magic bar, skills)
2
Rarity (e.g., limited resources and collectables)
2
Economy (e.g., a virtual currency to be used for transactions)
2
Social pressure (e.g., peer pressure, guild missions)
2
Reputation (e.g., titles, status, ranking)
2
Puzzles (e.g., actual puzzles, cognitive tasks, mysteries)
2
Sensation (e.g., visual and sound effects)
2
Storytelling (e.g., animated scenes, audio queues or text queues)
2
Chance (e.g., elements of randomness or probability)
1
Interactive narrative (i.e., choices or performances in the system that
influence the progression of the story and its ending)
1
Imposed choices (e.g., judgements, forced choices)
0
Novelty (e.g., changes, surprises, updates)
0
Renovation (e.g., extra life, boosts, renewal)
0
Moreover, in many of the studies analysed, researchers adopted ready-to-use tools to
implement gamification, in particular gamified student response systems (such as Kahoot!,
Socrative, Quizalize), instead of designing an ad hoc gamified solution.
3.3. RQ2 – Challenges faced in GFL implementation by the HE
teachers
Throughout the analysis, the researchers identified and categorised specific references to
challenges encountered at various stages of the implementation process and affecting either the
teachers or the students. These challenges were organised into five categories, initially
formulated based on existing literature (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018; Lester et al., 2023; Lo &
Hew, 2017), and subsequently refined during the data extraction phase (Table 4).
Table 4. Challenges faced in the implementation of GFL.
Challenge category # of
studies Example Quote
The same solution is not
equally effective for all
learners
12
“Girls perceived a greater effect of the program on
motivation than boys, just as they thought they had
learned more and that they valued the strategies employed
more positively than their male peers” (Gómez-Carrasco et
al., 2020, p.11)
Class management issues 10
“The instructor introduced these rules at the beginning of
the course. However, he did not actually ensure that each
student understood the rules clearly. As a result, some
students were confused about the rules for earning the
game elements (e.g. how to earn the quality-based badges).

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
Their engagement in the initial weeks was thus impaired.”
(Huang et al., 2019, p.17)
More time-consuming and
difficult to design than a
traditional course
9
“[Teachers] must prepare much more digital instruction
and video than traditional instruction” (Ng & Lo, 2023,
p.13)
Lack of digital skills 5
“All participants (i.e., teachers, teaching assistants and
students) mentioned the need for technical support” (Ng &
Lo, 2023, p.13)
Higher student workload
compared to a traditional
course
3
“FL requires active participation both inside and outside
the classroom. Consequently, it requires more time and
effort than what is required in traditional learning
methods” (Kim & Kim, 2022, p.8)
3.4. RQ3 – Guiding principles informing the design of GFL
To address the challenges described in the selected studies, and to offer guidance to the
teachers, some design principles can be derived both from the theories underpinning flipped
learning and educational gamification and from the studies carried out so far. For each
challenge, the corresponding guiding principles, either related to one of the components of GFL
(flipped learning and gamification) or to the overall design, are listed in Table 4 and then
described below.
Table 4. Guiding principles.
Challenges Guiding principles
Flipped learning Gamification General
The same type of solution
is not suitable for all types
of learners
Offer flexibility
Strive for wider
appeal
Class management issues
Design a
cohesive
learning
experience
Favour collaboration
over competition Communicate openly
More time-consuming and
difficult to design than a
traditional course
Mix created and
curated content Provide feedback
Lack of digital skills
Do not overcomplicate
technical aspects

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
Higher student workload
compared to a traditional
course
Ensure
manageable
workload
Design an overall
pleasurable and fun
experience
Offer flexibility. Allow students to access individual space at any time and any place and
study theoretical content at their own pace, and if possible, provide access to alternative
materials to study the same content, enabling them to choose what best suits their learning style,
needs and level of mastery (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018; Bergmann & Sams, 2012).
Strive for wider appeal. Implementing a gamified system based only on a limited amount
of game elements, such as points, badges and leaderboards, can feel like a safe option for
inexperienced gamification designers. However, including more game elements can be a better
option to appeal also to learners who are less motivated by these specific game elements
(Marczewski, 2018; Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
Design a cohesive learning experience. To prevent student confusion, the connection
between the contents provided in the individual space and the activities foreseen in the group
space should be explicit and meaningful. Individual space and group space activities should
support each other as part of the complete flipped classroom design (Hwang et al., 2019).
Favour collaboration over competition. Competition can lead to class dynamics that are
difficult to manage, so it may be preferable to implement cooperative rather than competitive
gamification (An, 2020), or to implement intergroup competition to try to combine the benefits
of both competition and cooperation (Morschheuser et al., 2019).
Communicate openly. The teacher should provide students with a clear overview of how a
gamified flipped learning course works and what is expected from them and keep an open
dialogue with the students throughout the course (Hwang et al., 2015).
Mix created and curated content. To reduce the time and effort needed when preparing a
new flipped learning course, a viable strategy is to combine the creation of new content and the
curation of good quality open educational resources already available (Bergmann & Sams,
2012; Talbert, 2017).
Provide feedback. A gamified flipped learning course should be designed to provide as
many opportunities as possible to give individual feedback to students on their learning progress
(Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Kapp, 2012; Sakulprasertsri, 2017). Rewards in a gamified system
(such as badges, achievements, trophies, and points) should be intended as a way of giving
feedback on users' performance (Marczewski, 2018).
Do not overcomplicate technical aspects. Learning technologies implemented in both the
individual and group space of a gamified flipped course should be easy to use and should not
be a barrier for either students or teachers (Vanduhe et al., 2020).
Ensure a manageable workload. Students should not perceive that the adoption of the
flipped learning approach resulted in an increase in study time and/or workload associated with
the course (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018).
Design an overall pleasurable and fun experience. The whole point of gamifying a course
is to leverage the power of games in an educational context and to create a more game-like
experience (Kapp, 2012). Therefore, interacting with a gamified system should be perceived as
pleasurable and enjoyable, since perceived enjoyment has been considered as an intrinsic
motivational driver (Davis et al., 1992).

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
4. Discussion
As with the preceding systematic reviews on GFL (Ekici, 2021; Smith et al., 2022), all the
studies included in the present review were published after 2016, showing that GFL is a
relatively young research area. Findings also highlighted that in less than a decade the interest
in this approach has risen significantly, receiving further impetus during, and in the aftermath
of, the Covid-19 crises (14 out of the 26 retrieved studies were carried out between 2020 and
2022). Most of the studies reviewed (16 out of 26) were conducted in undergraduate programs.
The most common subject areas for the GFL interventions included Arts and Humanities
(19.2%), Natural Sciences, Mathematics, and Statistics (19.2%), and Education (15.4%).
Notably, under the same umbrella term of GFL, a wide range of solutions has been
developed. The interventions described in the selected studies were indeed distributed between
blended (69%) and online delivery modes (27%); foresaw the implementation of game elements
in out-of-class activities (27%), in-class activities (38%), or both (35%); applied gamification
to a limited number of learning activities (81%), or adopted a more structural approach,
gamifying the entire course (19%).
This level of variability testifies to the inherent flexibility of GFL. Indeed, as with flipped
learning itself (O’Flaherty & Phillips, 2015), GFL appears to be adaptable to diverse contexts,
learning requirements, and course subjects and levels. At the same time, this flexibility
represents a challenge for teachers, who are burdened with the complex and time-consuming
task of translating the multifaceted concept of GFL into practice (Durrani et al., 2022; Hung,
2017; Kim & Kim, 2022; Ng & Lo, 2023; Sailer & Sailer, 2021; Zamora-Polo et al., 2019).
When analysing the game elements which are implemented in GFL in HE (RQ1), despite
the numerosity of game elements that could be deployed in gamified system, it is evident that
the experiences based on the use of points, acknowledgements and competition are still
predominant; even in light of the literature identifying this kind of gamification as controversial
and of limited effectiveness, especially in motivating users in the medium and long term
(Dicheva et al., 2018; Nacke & Deterding, 2017; Toda et al., 2018; Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
Moreover, many of the studies relied on ready-to-use tools and applied gamification solely to
specific course activities instead of attempting to achieve a more organic integration between
instructional design and gamification design. An explanation can be found when analysing the
challenges faced by HE teachers in the implementation of GFL (RQ2). Indeed, it appears that
designing a GFL intervention is considered a time-consuming activity by many authors (35%
of the selected studies), especially when they approach this method without previous knowledge
of either flipped learning or gamification. In addition, introducing GFL can result in issues in
the management of the class, and requires giving students precise instructions on the game
elements introduced in order to avoid misunderstanding, which may result in students becoming
frustrated over the method, or even the course itself (Huang et al., 2019). These challenges may
be what motivate many teachers to adopt a basic gamification approach or resort to ready-to-
use tools. Consequently, the progress “from points/badges/leaderboards to other features and
aspects of game design” observed by Nacke & Deterding (2017) in gamification research, has
yet to happen in GFL research.
Among the main challenges of GFL, one of the most critical challenges of flipped learning
reported in the literature is notably absent (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018), namely the problem of
students coming to class unprepared. Hence, it appears that introducing gamification in flipped
learning does have a mitigating effect on this challenge.

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
Despite the previously highlighted limitations, the reported results of GFL interventions are
generally positive and encouraging. The implementation of this approach contributes to
fostering students’ motivation, learning achievements and engagement. Moreover, this
approach seems to be generally well received by the students and its implementation has also
been reported to improve the students’ overall perception of the course.
Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that one of the most frequently mentioned
challenges in the analysed studies is the inherent variability in students' responses to specific
game elements. Thus, offering a diversified gamified system may prove to be a more effective
strategy to meet the needs and expectations of the collective class cohort, as underscored by
other researchers in the field of gamification (Kocadere & Çağlar, 2018; Manzano-León et al.,
2021). In addition, the growing field of research focusing on the integration of gamification and
artificial intelligence to design adaptive gamified learning environments is very promising and
could shortly offer interesting solutions to address this specific problem (Lavoué et al., 2019;
Oliveira & Bittencourt, 2019; Serna et al., 2023).
5. Conclusions
This literature review focused on analysing studies conducted within HE that examine the
integration of flipped learning and gamification. What emerged from the analysis of the selected
studies in this relatively young and still expanding research field is that it is characterised by a
wide variety of implementation approaches. This variety appears to be a strength (indicating
the flexibility and adaptability of GFL) but also a weakness (requiring time to be properly
designed and implemented).
Drawing from the insights that emerged from previous experiences and the promising
outcomes they have reported, future educators inclined towards implementing this approach
may find value in pursuing a more organic integration of gamification and flipped learning
(Kocadere & Çağlar, 2018; Manzano-León et al., 2021). Moreover, a more nuanced and
deliberate selection of game elements for implementation could be considered in order to
overcome the limitations of the different responses each specific game element may elicit from
different students (Dicheva et al., 2018; Nacke & Deterding, 2017; Toda et al., 2018; Werbach
& Hunter, 2012).
Finally, the current evolution of gamification research, exploring the potentiality of artificial
intelligence, could also provide beneficial insights and solutions to be applied in GFL.
6. Study limitations
In this review, specific keywords and criteria to search the scientific databases and identify
relevant studies for examination were employed. This approach ensured that the final selection
of studies on GFL in HE was highly representative. However, it is important to note that 31 of
the 155 papers selected after the title and abstract screening could not be retrieved. Additionally,
utilising different search criteria may yield slightly different data. For instance, if conference
papers were included in the analysis, the reported results could vary. Therefore, further research
is warranted, using alternative selection criteria, to gain a more comprehensive understanding
of how, and with what impact, GFL has been implemented at the HE level.

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
7. References
Ahmed, H. D., & Asiksoy, G. (2021). The effects of gamified flipped learning method on student’s
Innovation Skills, Self-Efficacy towards Virtual Physics Lab Course and Perceptions.
Sustainability, 13(18), 10163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810163
Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges.
Computers & Education, 126(August), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021
An, Y. (2020). Designing effective gamified learning experiences. International Journal of Technology
in Education, 3(2), 62. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.v3i2.27
Anane, C. (2022). Gamified flipped learning in a French foreign language class: Efficiency and student
perception. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.994892
Asiksoy, G., & Canbolat, S. (2021). The effects of the gamified flipped classroom method on petroleum
engineering students’ pre-class online behavioural engagement and achievement. International
Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (IJEP), 11(5), 19. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v11i5.21957
Aşıksoy, G. (2018). The effects of the gamified flipped classroom environment (GFCE) on students’
motivation, learning achievements and perception in a physics course. Quality & Quantity, 52(S1),
129–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0597-1
Baig, M. I., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2023). Flipped classroom in higher education: a systematic
literature review and research challenges. International Journal of Educational Technology in
Higher Education, 20(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00430-5
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: reach every student in every class every day.
International Society for Technology in Education.
https://www.rcboe.org/cms/lib/GA01903614/Centricity/Domain/15451/Flip_your_Classroom.pdf
Brame, C. J. (2013). Flipping the classroom. Vanderbilt University. Center for Teaching.
http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/flipping-the-classroom/
Bredow, C. A., Roehling, P. V., Knorp, A. J., & Sweet, A. M. (2021). To flip or not to flip? a meta-
analysis of the efficacy of flipped learning in higher education. Review of Educational Research,
91(6), 878–918. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019122
Chen, Y., Zhang, L. Y., & Yin, H. (2022). A longitudinal study on students’ foreign language anxiety
and cognitive load in gamified classes of higher education. Sustainability, 14(17), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710905
Choi, J. F., & Choi, J. (2021). Development of gamification model for flipped learning. International
Journal of Crisis & Safety, 6(2), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.22471/crisis.2021.6.2.68

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
Collado-Valero, J., Rodríguez-Infante, G., Romero-González, M., Gamboa-Ternero, S., Navarro-Soria,
I., & Lavigne-Cerván, R. (2021). Flipped classroom: Active methodology for sustainable learning
in higher education during social distancing due to COVID-19. Sustainability, 13(10), 5336.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105336
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.1992.tb00945.x
Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: toward a definition. In Chi
2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings (pp. 12–15). http://gamification-research.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/02-Deterding-Khaled-Nacke-Dixon.pdf
Dicheva, D., Irwin, K., & Dichev, C. (2018). Motivational factors in educational gamification. In
Proceedings - IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT
2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2018.00102
Divjak, B., Rienties, B., Iniesto, F., Vondra, P., & Žižak, M. (2022). Flipped classrooms in higher
education during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings and future research recommendations.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00316-4
Durrani, U. K., Al Naymat, G., Ayoubi, R. M., Kamal, M. M., & Hussain, H. (2022a). Gamified flipped
classroom versus traditional classroom learning: Which approach is more efficient in business
education? International Journal of Management Education, 20(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100595
Durrani, U. K., Hujran, O., & Al-Adwan, A. S. (2022b). CrossQuestion game: a group-based assessment
for gamified flipped classroom experience using the ARCS model. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 14(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11568
Ekici, M. (2021). A systematic review of the use of gamification in flipped learning. Education and
Information Technologies, 26, 3327–3346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10394-y
Elzeky, M. E. H., Elhabashy, H. M. M., Ali, W. G. M., & Allam, S. M. E. (2022). Effect of gamified
flipped classroom on improving nursing students’ skills competency and learning motivation: a
randomized controlled trial. BMC Nursing, 21(1), 316. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-01096-
6
Forndran, F., & Zacharias, C. R. (2019). Gamified experimental physics classes: a promising active
learning methodology for higher education. European Journal of Physics, 40, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ab215e

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
Gaebel, M., Zhang, T., Stoeber, H., & Morrisroe, A. (2021). Digitally enhanced learning and teaching
in European higher education institutions.
https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/digihe%20new%20version.pdf
Gómez-Carrasco, C.-J., Monteagudo-Fernández, J., Moreno-Vera, J.-R., & Sainz-Gómez, M. (2019).
Effects of a Gamification and Flipped-Classroom Program for Teachers in Training on Motivation
and Learning Perception. Education Sciences, 9(4), 299. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040299
Gündüz, A. Y., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2020). Effectiveness of Gamification in Flipped Learning. SAGE
Open, 10(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020979837
Huang, B., & Hew, K. F. (2018a). Implementing a theory-driven gamification model in higher education
flipped courses: Effects on out-of-class activity completion and quality of artifacts. Computers &
Education, 125, 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.018
Huang, B., & Hew, K. F. (2018b). Implementing a theory-driven gamification model in higher education
flipped courses: Effects on out-of-class activity completion and quality of artifacts. Computers &
Education, 125(August 2017), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.018
Huang, B., Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Investigating the effects of gamification-enhanced flipped
learning on undergraduate students’ behavioral and cognitive engagement. Interactive Learning
Environments, 27(8), 1106–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1495653
Hung, H. T. (2017). Clickers in the flipped classroom: bring your own device (BYOD) to promote
student learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(8), 983–995.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1240090
Hung, H. T. (2018). Gamifying the flipped classroom using game-based learning materials. ELT
Journal, 72(3), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx055
Hwang, G.-J., Lai, C.-L., & Wang, S.-Y. (2015). Seamless flipped learning: a mobile technology-
enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of Computers in Education,
2(4), 449–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0043-0
Hwang, G.-J., Yin, C., & Chu, H. C. (2019). The era of flipped learning: promoting active learning and
higher order thinking with innovative flipped learning strategies and supporting systems.
Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 991–994.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1667150
Irwanto, I., Wahyudiati, D., Saputro, A. D., & Laksana, S. D. (2023). Research Trends and Applications
of Gamification in Higher Education: A Bibliometric Analysis Spanning 2013–2022. International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 18(05), 19–41.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i05.37021

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
Kalogiannakis, M., Papadakis, S., & Zourmpakis, A. I. (2021). Gamification in science education. A
systematic review of the literature. Education Sciences, 11(1), 1–36.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010022
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies
for training and education. John Wiley & Sons.
Kim, H., & Kim, B. (2022). Effects of situation-based flipped learning and gamification as combined
methodologies in psychiatric nursing education: A quasi-experimental study. Healthcare, 10(644),
1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10040644
Kocadere, S. A., & Çağlar, Ş. (2018). Gamification from player type perspective. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 12–22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26458503
Krath, J., Schürmann, L., & von Korflesch, H. F. O. (2021). Revealing the theoretical basis of
gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games
and game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 125, 106963.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963
Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 752–
768. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114563660
Lavoué, É., Monterrat, B., Desmarais, M., & George, S. (2019). Adaptive gamification for learning
environments. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(1), 16–28.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2018.2823710
Lester, D., Skulmoski, G. J., Fisher, D. P., Mehrotra, V., Lim, I., Lang, A., & Keogh, J. W. L. (2023).
Drivers and barriers to the utilisation of gamification and game‐based learning in universities: A
systematic review of educators’ perspectives. British Journal of Educational Technology,
February, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13311
Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2017). A critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education:
possible solutions and recommendations for future research. Research and Practice in Technology
Enhanced Learning, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0044-2
López, M. A. R. (2017). european higher education area-driven educational innovation. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 1505–1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.237
Luo, Z. (2022). Gamification for educational purposes: What are the factors contributing to varied
effectiveness? Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 891–915.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S10639-021-10642-9
Manzano-León, A., Camacho-Lazarraga, P., Guerrero, M. A., Guerrero-Puerta, L., Aguilar-Parra, J. M.,
Trigueros, R., & Alias, A. (2021). Between level up and game over: A systematic literature review
of gamification in education. Sustainability, 13(4), 2247. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042247

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
Marczewski, A. (2018). Even ninja monkeys like to play: Unicorn Edition. Gamified UK.
Marey, A., Goubran, S., & Tarabieh, K. (2022). Refurbishing classrooms for hybrid learning: balancing
between infrastructure and technology improvements. Buildings, 12(738), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060738
Misseyanni, A., Papadopoulou, P., Marouli, C., & Lytras, M. D. (2018). Active learning stories in higher
education: lessons learned and good practices in STEM education. In Active Learning Strategies in
Higher Education (pp. 75–105). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78714-487-320181004
Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., & Maedche, A. (2019). Cooperation or competition – When do people
contribute more? A field experiment on gamification of crowdsourcing. International Journal of
Human Computer Studies, 127, 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.10.001
Nacke, L. E., & Deterding, S. (2017). The maturing of gamification research. Computers in Human
Behavior, 71, 450–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.062
Ng, L.-K., & Lo, C.-K. (2022). Flipped classroom and gamification approach: Its impact on performance
and academic commitment on sustainable learning in education. Sustainability, 14, 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095428
Ng, L.-K., & Lo, C.-K. (2023). Enhancing online instructional approaches for sustainable business
education in the current and post-pandemic era: An action research study of student engagement.
Education Sciences, 13(42), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010042
O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping
review. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002
Oliveira, W., & Bittencourt, I. I. (2019). Tailored gamification to educational technologies. In Tailored
Gamification to Educational Technologies. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9812-5
Ozer, H. H., Kanbul, S., & Ozdamli, F. (2018). Effects of the gamification supported flipped classroom
model on the attitudes and opinions regarding game-coding education. International Journal Of
Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i01.7634
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer,
L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M.,
Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher,
D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
In The BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pelizzari, F. (2024). Gamification in higher education: A systematic literature review. Italian Journal
of Educational Technology, 31(3), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1335

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
Recabarren, M., Corvalán, B., & Villegas, M. (2023). Exploring the differences between gamer and
non-gamer students in the effects of gamification on their motivation and learning. Interactive
Learning Environments, 31(6), 3529–3542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1933543
Rodríguez-Abitia, G., & Bribiesca-Correa, G. (2021). Assessing digital transformation in universities.
Future Internet, 13(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13020052
Ruiz, C. G. (2021). The effect of integrating Kahoot! and peer instruction in the Spanish flipped
classroom: the student perspective. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 8(1), 63–78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2021.1913832
Sailer, M., & Sailer, M. (2021). Gamification of in‐class activities in flipped classroom lectures. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12948
Sakulprasertsri, K. (2017). Flipped learning approach: engaging 21st century learners in English
classrooms. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network Journal,
10(2), 132–143. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1229623.pdf
Serna, A., Hallifax, S., & Lavoué, É. (2023). Investigating the effects of tailored gamification on
learners’ engagement over time in a learning environment. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-
Computer Interaction, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1145/3611030
Smith, A., Legaki, N. Z., & Hamari, J. (2022). Games and gamification in flipped classrooms: A
systematic review. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3147, 33–43. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-
3147/paper4.pdf
Talbert, R. (2017). Flipped learning. A guide for higher education faculty. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Toda, A. M., Cristea, A. I., Oliveira, W., Klock, A. C., Palomino, P. T., Pimenta, M., Gasparini, I., Shi,
L., Bittencourt, I., & Isotani, S. (2019). A taxonomy of game elements for gamification in
educational contexts: proposal and evaluation. 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on
Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2019.00028
Toda, A. M., Valle, P. H. D., & Isotani, S. (2018). The dark side of gamification: An overview of
negative effects of gamification in education. In A. I. Cristea, I. I. Bittencourt, & F. Lima (Eds.),
Higher education for all. from challenges to novel technology-enhanced solutions, Vol. 832 (pp.
143–156). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97934-2_9
Vanduhe, V. Z., Nat, M., & Hasan, H. F. (2020). Continuance intentions to use gamification for training
in higher education: integrating the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), social motivation, and
Task Technology Fit (TTF). IEEE Access, 8, 21473–21484.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2966179

GIADA MARINENSI ET AL.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2532-4632 (print) – ISSN 2532-7720 (online)
Accepted Manuscript Online. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1355
Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015). Revisiting the blended learning literature: using a complex
adaptive systems framework. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 380–393.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.2.380
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business.
Wharton digital press.
Yildirim, I. (2017). The effects of gamification-based teaching practices on student achievement and
students’ attitudes toward lessons. Internet and Higher Education, 33, 86–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.02.002
Yllana-Prieto, F., Jeong, J. S., & González-Gómez, D. (2021). An online-based edu-escape room: A
comparison study of a multidimensional domain of PSTs with flipped sustainability-STEM
contents. Sustainability, 13, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031032
Zainuddin, Z. (2018). Students’ learning performance and perceived motivation in gamified flipped-
class instruction. Computers & Education, 126, 75–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.003
Zainuddin, Z., Farida, R., Keumala, C. M., Kurniawan, R., & Iskandar, H. (2022). Synchronous online
flip learning with formative gamification quiz: instruction during COVID-19. Interactive
Technology and Smart Education, 19(2), 236–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-01-2021-0002
Zamora-Polo, F., Corrales-Serrano, M., Sánchez-Martín, J., & Espejo-Antúnez, L. (2019). Nonscientific
university students training in general science using an active-learning merged pedagogy:
gamification in a flipped classroom. Education Sciences, 9(297), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040297