Unexplored Gamification Elements in Learning
Environments
Sara Adel El-Shorbagy, Nada Sherief, Walid Abdelmoez
College of Computing and Information Technology
Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport – Alexandria, Egypt
2 0111 91 44 800, +2 01277886800, +2 01113718555
sara.elshorbagy86@student.aast.edu; nada.sherief@aast.edu; walid.abdelmoez@aast.edu
ABSTRACT
Gamification has been under exploration for the last 10 years.
Researchers have found that gamification of learning has a
potential to increase students’ performance, engagement and
enjoyment in courses. It was also suggested that one way to
achieve that is through personalization of the students’ experience
weather by identifying their personality traits, player types or their
learning styles. However, it is not trivial to achieve that goal. An
extensive work is required in the design and implementation of
the gamified learning experience for it to be entirely motivating
for participants. In our research we have found that there are
unexplored game elements that were either never or rarely used in
learning contexts. Those unexplored elements are correlated to
player/personality types which mean that they motivate them in a
better way. In this paper we present a mapping of gamification
elements, player types, personality traits and learning styles,
which led to a new finding that some personality types are having
a great focus on, while some types are partially or totally
neglected in the gamified leaning context. Thus, this paper
provides a step towards better utilization of game elements in
designing learning environments to create a better way to enhance
students’ behaviors, motivation and performance as well.
CCS Concepts
• Human-centered computing ➝ Collaborative and social
computing theory, concepts and paradigms
Keywords
Gamification; Learning; Big 5 personality traits; Learning styles;
Gamification Elements; Unexplored elements; User types;
1. INTRODUCTION
Gamification is the use of game elements in non-gaming contexts.
It is usually utilized in serious contexts to enhance engagement,
motivation and participation in order to change users’ behavior [1].
Gamification appeared in 2002 by Nick Pelling describing it as
“applying game-like accelerated user interface design to make
electronic transactions both enjoyable and fast.” [2].
Nowadays, gamification is emerging in so many fields like
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights
for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be
honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from
Permissions@acm.org.
ICSIE 2020, November 11–13, 2020, Cairo, Egypt
© 2020 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-7721-8/20/04…$15.00
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3436829.3436852
102
software development [2] [3], government [4] and health [1]. In
this paper, we are more concerned about Gamification in
education and learning context.
According to the calculations in statista [5], the education
gamification market is expected to grow exponentially from 93
million U.S. dollars in 2015 to nearly 1.5 billion U.S. dollars in
2020.
Gamification is playing an important role in our daily life but
unfortunately it is applied partially that leads to only making
companies gain more revenue but lacking the human factor which
is the users of the systems that employ gamification. Users are the
main intended audience of these systems and a key factor to its
success. Thus, to make gamification successful according to [6],
more focus must be paid to the psychological aspects that affect
human behavior. Otherwise, it will be called “Fake Gamification”,
which is a process that only adds decorative game elements to the
systems without including elements that have an effect on human
characteristics, extrinsic and intrinsic motivations [7].
At the early stages of employing gamification only badges, points
and leaderboards were adopted, but lately more elements are
being used. However, it is still an open question in research why
are these elements not enough anymore and many more game
elements must be included in any gamification framework to
succeed [8]. Examples from what researchers have found to
partially answer that question is that the effect of leaderboards
differs according to personalities. It can positively or negatively
influence performance according to personality type [9]. Also,
while rewards may be motivating for some users it can decrease
confidence of others [9] [10]. Thus, more work and studies should
be conducted to identify motivational elements and their possible
risks in different contexts to design better personalized gamified
systems.
According to [11], customization and personalization achieves
better results and are more effective than generic approaches. That
is why researchers are attempting to personalize learning
environments by using different factors such as age, gender,
personality traits, user types and learning styles [12] [13] [14].
With personalizing design and content, learning can become more
effective by displaying the relevant content using the relevant
style to the right users. This personalized content motivates the
users much further, compared to generic, “one size fits all”
content [15] leading to better course satisfaction [2]. On the other
hand, risks have occurred like undesired behavior and declining
student performance [6], [8].
The ultimate goal of our research is to provide students with a
better learning experience through putting in regard their
differences whether in personality or learning styles. To achieve
this, we need to identify the underlying requirements to achieve
that goal. Our initial study concluded that software engineers do
not have guidelines on personalized game elements usages.
 Accordingly, most of them implement them superficially with an
assumption that it will suit all users. Thus, we needed to go more
in-depth to focus on both the unexplored elements and also the
user types that have no gamification elements implemented.
Consequently, there is a need for a comprehensive mapping
between personality traits, user types and learning styles to guide
software engineers and enable them to avoid undesired game
elements usage or lack of user type coverage leading to better
design and implementation of learning systems.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a
brief background on behaviorism, big 5 personality traits, player
types, and learning styles and related work. Section 3 shows the
research criteria and how the unexplored elements were identified.
Section 4 presents the explored and unexplored gamification
elements. Section 5 shows the mappings between player types, big
5, and learning styles. In section 6 the results are discussed.
Finally, the last section presents the conclusion and future work.
2. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK
This section will provide a brief summary on concepts that we
utilize in our research and mapping and the related work.
2.1 Big 5 Personality Traits
Previous researches have mentioned that personalization has a
psychological effect on users’ satisfaction and user experience
especially by using big 5 personality traits [1] [16], which is the
most used personality model in academic psychology that comes
from statistical studies of responses.
Those five personality traits are: Extraversion that is sociable,
gregarious, assertive, and cheerful; Neuroticism that is referred to
by negative emotionality or emotional stability; Agreeableness,
refers to those who have the tendency to be cooperative, generous,
altruistic, and warm; Conscientiousness, are dependable,
organized, persistent, and goal-oriented; Openness to Experience
refers to those who are curious, unconventional, and imaginative.
2.2 Gamification Player Types
Marczewski proposed six user types that have different
motivations whether intrinsic or extrinsic [1]. Understanding user
types and their corresponding gamification techniques like
mechanics and dynamics is an important aspect in the design [17]
[18].
Player types are: Philanthropists who are altruistic and willing to
give without expecting a reward [19]; Socializers want to interact
with others and create social connections [1]; Achievers seek to
progress within a system by completing tasks, or prove
themselves by tackling difficult challenges [1]; Free Spirits are
motivated by freedom to express themselves [19]. They like to
create and explore within a system; Players will do whatever to
earn a reward within a system, independently of the type of the
activity [20]; Disruptors tend to disrupt the system either directly
or through others to force negative or positive changes [20] .
2.3 Learning Styles
According to [10] [16] [21] Learning styles are divided into 4
different dimensions and 8 different learning styles which were
identified by Felder. They are Sensing-Intuitive (the way
information is perceived); Visual-Verbal (the way information is
presented); Active-Reflective (the way information is processed),
and Sequential-Global (the way information is understood).
103
2.4 Related Work
Unfortunately, most Gamification in education studies focus only
on few elements and neglecting the main purpose of gamification
in education, which is aiding students to immerse and effectively
collaborate in the specified course or lecture. It was discussed in
several studies that only BPL (badges, points and leaderboards)
were used & neglecting the other elements which are directly
mapped to most of the personalities [1] [15] [17] [22] [23] [24].
According to [25], games are interesting because the obstacles and
the failure can be overcome, which do not have effect on the
player real life. For example, some user types in real life are
influenced by negative feedback in a negative way that makes
them focus more on their flaws and not to work to make
themselves better [25]. Oppositely, in game context a negative
feedback does not have that kind of influence like the word
“Game Over” as it decreases the competence and increases the
immediate desire to play again [25]. We argue that those results
may vary because the same game element does not have the same
kind of motivation or demotivation for different user types.
People learn and process information differently whether they are
mapped to learning styles, Bartle’s [24] or big five personality
traits [13]. Therefore, each student needs to be educated and
rewarded in a way that specially motivates him/her. Unfortunately,
most of teachers or lecturers use challenge & leaderboards but
they put so much load and pressure on many students emotionally
and socially with those elements [8], which may affect the
wellbeing of students. That is why the rest of elements are needed
to be implemented and designed in a way to better motivate the
students regarding their differences.
3. RESEARCH CRITERIA AND PROCESS
At the beginning, we started our search criteria with search words
that contain gamification in any context then it was narrowed
down to be specific to only learning contexts the steps are shown
in figure 1 and discussed in details below.
The first step was to search for papers that include (gamification
and learning) or (gamification and education) or (game and learn)
or (game and education) or (gamification and elements) or
(gamified or gamification) in learning contexts. More than 150
papers were selected through the titles. Then in the second step
after analyzing the abstracts, the number decreased to 93 papers.
In the third step, our focus was to select the papers that contain
information about the 52-gamification elements of Marczewski
gamification periodic table [26].
Then 24 papers were selected and divided to two kinds of
references that were reviewed: 17 research papers ( [2] [8] [10]
[11] [13] [14] [15] [17] [18] [19] [20] [22] [23] [24] [27] [28]
[29]) and 7 surveys ( [7] [9] [12] [30] [31] [32] [33]) were
reviewed. Then elements were detected from the research papers.
However, the survey papers needed a different kind of process. A
total of 162 references were used in the 7 surveys, duplicate
references were removed.
After that, the duplicate references were compared to check that
no elements were found in one and removed from another. For
example, 2 papers had badges as an element but one mentioned
boss battles while the other mentioned challenge. That was taken
into consideration and was added to the detected elements count
as well.
While searching in papers for gamification elements a new
challenge has occurred. Every paper may address the same
element with different names or synonyms. The elements names
where extracted from different papers and oxford dictionary was
used in addition, an expert in gamification opinion was taken into
consideration as well. Finally, as shown in figure 2 the explored
and unexplored elements were detected.
effects, loss of motivation, engagement over time (addiction) and
increase of social pressure.
We argue that users who are experiencing side effects of
gamification is due to the neglecting of the rest of elements that
are directly proportional to their personality types as shown in the
figure 2 and figure 3. That hypothesis is supported by [8] as Toda
et.al found that badges and leaderboards increases indifference
and undesired behavior while leaderboards and points impacts
loss of performance and declining effects. However, they are
highly used because they still positively affect other users.

Figure 1. Search criteria and process for exploring gamifiction

elements in litriture.

4. EXPLORED AND UNEXPLORED

GAMIFICATION ELEMENTS
Gamification advantages appears more in a customized learning
context as it increases motivation [15], course satisfaction [2],
engagement [27] , activity [30] , enjoyment performance [23],
behavior change [28][29], attitude towards gamification,
collaboration [9], interest, attendance, assignment completion, and
more effort [32] .
On the other hand, gamification drawbacks in educational context
like lack of motivation caused by the lack of game elements that
provide the full explanation of each learning contents, student felt Figure 2. Explored and unexplored gamification elements
bored and did not enjoy competition elements such as leaderboard categorized according to gamification periodic table.
[30]. Examples of gamification disadvantages in [6], [8]:
Indifference, loss of performance, undesired behavior, declining

104
Gamification unfortunately is used to its minimum, because only
badges, points and leaderboards are used [6], [33]. As shown in
figure 2, only 6 elements have more than 40 references in
literature, only 9 elements vary between 10 to 28 references, 14
elements vary between 1 to 9 references and finally, 23 elements
were never mentioned in any reference at all. The elements shown
only motivate 1/5 of the world’s personalities that means we are
trying to thrust the rest of the population directions into one kind
of interest, which will be illustrated in figure 3 later on. We argue
that this is one of the main reasons that gamification risks are
emerging.
Gamification has many factors to succeed but it must be used in
the right way. This gap was the motivation for this research goal
and initial results. This research focuses on devising a guideline
for software engineers that can be utilized as a systematic
approach for the design and implementation of gamified learning
environments. This includes formulating mappings to inform
better design in a way that ensures coverage for all user types in
learning context.
5. MAPPINGS DATA ANALYSIS
This section will discuss the mapping between gamification player
types, and big five personality traits in addition to learning styles.
The combinations of this mapping as shown in figure 3, was
according to the analysis of [1] [17] [20] where player types are
mapped with big five personalities. The mapping of big five
personalities to learning styles was according to [13] [16] [21]
[24]. In figure 3, we present our combined analysis and explain
the mapping correlations.
Green arrows are connected to Openness to Experience which
are correlated to philanthropist and free spirit [1] on the left side
while on the right side it has positive relationship with active-
reflective learning styles [21]. By looking at figure 2,
Figure 3. Mappings between Gamification player types, Big Five Personality traits and Learning styles.
105
philanthropists have only 3 out of 6 elements that were used in
references and were only mentioned less than 5 times. However,
for the free spirit users, researchers are only focusing on avatars,
branching choices, and mainly neglecting the other motivators for
this personality. This means that if a student was a reflective
learner and a free spirit as well he will not have enough elements
to keep him motivated during the course.
Returning to figure 3, Red arrows are connected to
Conscientiousness which is correlated to Philanthropist, Achiever
and Player [1] on the left side .On the right side it has positive
relationship with Sensing-Intuitive learning styles at [21] that are
good at concrete examples, strict information, Concepts and
theoretical frames. Conscientiousness is the only type correlated
to Achiever and Player in addition of having the most explored 9
elements as shown in figure 2.
Blue arrows are connected with Agreeableness, on the left side
they are correlated to Philanthropist and socializers [1], while on
the right side it has positive relationship with Active, Sensing,
Visual and Sequential learning styles [21]. As shown in figure 2,
socializers element are almost 50% explored but lacking
important elements like social pressure which can result in an
undesired behavior [8].
Orange arrows connected to Extroversion with Philanthropist,
socializers and Free spirit [1] on the left side. Surprisingly on the
right side, it is positively related with all the learning styles [21].
Finally, Neuroticism is connected to black arrows and it is
negatively correlated with all of its connections. On the left side it
is correlated with Free Spirit and Disruptor [1] that does not have
any explored element at all as shown in figure 2. On the right side
it is negatively correlated with all the learning styles as well [21]
as shown in figure 3.
This leads us to a conclusion that the world focuses only on 1
personality type “conscientiousness” and whether it is in a player
mode or a learning mode this is the only person that will succeed
easily as the whole systems are designed to go with his/her
abilities to learn and grow. Unfortunately, the systems are trying
to force the rest of the types to succeed with a way that is hard for
them to achieve mastery. For example, extroversion will only
succeed because he/she are positively correlated with all learning
styles not because it is just a fit. He/she will be able to learn as he
can be intuitive/ sensing, which are the main focus of
conscientiousness but maybe he needs the other learning styles to
get everything well organized in his brain. Nevertheless, if
openness to experience was not able to receive some
active/reflective ways of learning it shall be very hard for him/her
to succeed. This is just the way his/her brain works but
unfortunately, the system does not put this into consideration.
According to [16] it was found that Conscientiousness was always
a significant contributor in academic achievement among the rest
personality traits. Even though extroversion is positively
correlated to all learning styles according to [21] it was the only
variable that was not related to GPA and course satisfaction in
[16]. Those studies support our findings that the system supports
only a few personalities and that we need to look at all the cube
sides (system) from a totally different perspective and not only
one side. This will contribute not only to learning contexts but
also for software development process to start using the
unexplored elements and increase motivation of the users’ types
that are not put into consideration.
6. DISCUSSION
Gamification is only used as a theme; unfortunately, most of the
studies or surveys focused on some common game elements and
neglects the rest. According to [12] challenges, progress and
feedback adds pressure of failure on users in addition that some
does not enjoy competition or sharing personal goals in
leaderboards, which increases the demotivation.
We propose the following steps as guidelines to create a better
design process for learning environments to enhance students’
behaviors and motivation.
First, all gamification elements must be put into consideration
depending on the focus of the study. Second, it must be mapped
to the personality types. As each personality type should be able
to use and have the option to have the elements that only triggers
his/her motivations and not to be forced to adapt to the only few
elements, which causes undesired behaviors. According to [11]
personalization enhances motivation and satisfaction.
Third, mapping the big 5 personalities to learning styles, help
students and lecturers to increase performance and student’s
motivation and engagement [16], [21] as each student
comprehend and process the information in a different way.
Finally, is to detect the users who are not put into consideration in
the platform or system. In learning, this will give more attention
to the students that are either losing performance, demotivated or
having a decline in their system loyalty. In our opinion, merging
all those factors shall reduce gamification risks and switch
gamification to excel in the new era.
7. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The unexplored gamification elements in addition, to the
mappings between gamification player types, big five personality
traits and learning styles showed the partially and neglected users
in the gamified leaning context. Our findings shall redirect
researches, software engineers and lecturers to focus more on
alternative ways in teaching or in designing apps in different ways
106
to give more opportunities for all types of users to enhance long-
term motivation. Furthermore, providing individualized
instructions are not the goal of teaching and learning but a more
balanced personalized way shall maximize their learning.
Our future work will extend and validate the presented results
through studying and exploring with actual participants. The
results reached in this paper will be utilized as an input for our
study. That is to further investigate the design and usage of the
identified unexplored game elements, while putting into
consideration more aspects such as the tasks performed in the
learning environments.
8. REFERENCES
[1] Tondello, G.F., Wehbe, R.R., Diamond, L., Busch, M.,
Marczewski, A. and Nacke, L.E. 2016, October. The
gamification user types hexad scale. In Proceedings of the
2016 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in
play. 229-243.
[2] Buckley, J., DeWille, T., Exton, C., Exton, G. and Murray, L.
2018. A gamification–motivation design framework for
educational software developers. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems. 47, 1(Sep. 2018), 101-127.
[3] Dal Sasso, T., Mocci, A., Lanza, M. and Mastrodicasa, E.
2017, February. How to gamify software engineering. In 24th
International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution
and Reengineering (SANER). IEEE. 261-271.
[4] Dos Santos, A.C., Zambalde, A.L., Veroneze, R.B., Botelho,
G.A. and de Souza Bermejo, P.H. 2015, August. Open
innovation and social participation: a case study in public
security in Brazil. In international conference on electronic
government and the information systems perspective.
Springer, Cham. 163-176.
[5] Greenfield, M. 2017. Value of the education gamification
market worldwide in 2015 and 2020 (in million U.S. dollars).
Statista Research Department. (March 2017). Retrieved
January 7, 2020 from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/680255/education-
gamification-market-value-worldwide/
[6] Landers, R.N. 2019. Gamification misunderstood: how badly
executed and rhetorical gamification obscures its
transformative potential. Journal of Management inquiry. 28,
2 (April 2019), 137-140.
[7] Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G. and Angelova, G. 2015.
Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 18, 3 (July
2015), 75-88.
[8] Toda, A.M., Valle, P.H. and Isotani, S. 2017, March. The
dark side of gamification: An overview of negative effects of
gamification in education. In Researcher Links Workshop:
Higher Education for All. Springer, Cham. 143-156.
[9] Antonaci, A., Klemke, R. and Specht, M. 2019. The Effects
of Gamification in Online Learning Environments: A
Systematic Literature Review. In Informatics.
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. 6, 3(Sep.
2019), p. 32.
[10] Zaric, N., Scepanović, S., Vujicic, T., Ljucovic, J. and
Davcev, D. 2017. The Model for Gamification of E-learning
in Higher Education Based on Learning Styles. In
International Conference on ICT Innovations. Springer,
Cham. 265-273.
[11] Tondello, G.F. and Nacke, L.E. 2018. Towards Customizing
Gameful Systems by Gameful Design Elements. In PPT@
PERSUASIVE. 102-110.
[12] Jia, Y., Xu, B., Karanam, Y. and Voida, S. 2016. Personality-
targeted gamification: a survey study on personality traits
and motivational affordances. In Proceedings of the 2016
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
2001-2013.
[13] Buckley, P. and Doyle, E. 2017. Individualising
gamification: An investigation of the impact of learning
styles and personality traits on the efficacy of gamification
using a prediction market. Computers & Education. 106
(March 2017), Elsevier Ltd. 43-55. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.009
[14] Shirsekar, S.S. 2019. Learning Through Gaming?.
In Research into Design for a Connected World. Springer,
Singapore. 901-911.
[15] Khaleel, F.L., Sahari, N., Wook, T.S.M.T. and Ismail, A.
2016. Gamification elements for learning applications.
International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering
and Information Technology. 6, 6 (Dec. 2016) 868-874. DOI:
10.18517/ijaseit.6.6.1379
[16] Pornsakulvanich, V., Dumrongsiri, N., Sajampun, P., Sornsri,
S., John, S.P., Sriyabhand, T., Nuntapanich, C.,
Chantarawandi, C., Wongweeranonchai, P. and Jiradilok, S.
2012. An analysis of personality traits and learning styles as
predictors of academic performance. ABAC Journal, 32(3).
[17] Akgün, Ö.E. and Topal, M. 2018. Adaptation of the
Gamification User Types Hexad Scale into
Turkish. International Journal. 5, 3 (Jan. 2018), 389-402.
[18] Ramesh, A. and Sadashiv, G. 2019. Essentials of
Gamification in Education: A Game-Based Learning.
In Research into Design for a Connected World. Springer,
Singapore. 975-988.
[19] Knutas, A., Van Roy, R., Hynninen, T., Granato, M.,
Kasurinen, J. and Ikonen, J. 2019. A process for designing
algorithm-based personalized gamification. Multimedia Tools
and Applications, 78, 10 (May 2019),13593-13612.
[20] Fortes Tondello, G., Mora, A., Marczewski, A. and Nacke,
L.E. 2018. Empirical validation of the Gamification User
Types Hexad scale in English and Spanish. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
[21] Siddiquei, N. and Khalid, R. 2018. The relationship between
personality traits, learning styles and academic performance
of e-learners. Open Praxis, 10, 3 (July 2018), 249-263. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.3.870
107
[22] Ofosu-Ampong, K. and Boateng, R. 2018. Gamifying Sakai:
Understanding game elements for learning. Twenty-fourth
Americas Conference on Information Systems, New Orleans.
[23] Alsawaier, R.S. 2018. The effect of gamification on
motivation and engagement. The International Journal of
Information and Learning Technology.
[24] Konert, J., Göbel, S. and Steinmetz, R. 2013. Modeling the
player, learner and personality: Independency of the models
of Bartle, Kolb and NEO-FFI (Big5) and the implications for
game based learning. In Proceedings of the 7th European
Conference on Game Based Learning (ECGBL). 329-335.
[25] Brühlmann, F. 2017. The effects of framing in gamification:
A study of failure. Springer.
[26] Marczewski, A. (2016) 52 Gamification Mechanics and
Elements, Gamified UK thoughts on Gamification and More.
Retrieved December 21, 2019 from
https://www.gamified.uk/user-types/gamification-mechanics-
elements/.
[27] Ab Rahman, R., Ahmad, S. and Hashim, U.R. 2019. A Study
on Gamification for Higher Education Students’ Engagement
Towards Education 4.0. In Intelligent and Interactive
Computing. Springer, Singapore. 491-502.
[28] Mageswaran Sanmugam, H.M., Zaid, N.M., Abdullah, Z.,
Aris, B. and Suhadi, S.M. 2014. Implementation of
Gamification as an educative tool via online and offline
methods; an analyses review.
[29] Çakıroğlu, Ü., Başıbüyük, B., Güler, M., Atabay, M. and
Memiş, B.Y. 2017. Gamifying an ICT course: Influences on
engagement and academic performance. Computers in
human behavior, 69 (2017), 98-107.
[30] Mohamad, S.N.M., Salam, S. and Bakar, N. 2017. An
analysis of gamification elements in online learning to
enhance learning engagement. In Proceedings Of The 6th
International Conference On Computing And Informatics,
ICOCI 2017. 41 (April. 2017), 452-460. University Utara
Malaysia.
[31] Fahimnia, F., Naghshineh, N. and Mirhosseini, F. 2019.
Gamified e-learning in higher education: A systematic
review of the literature. , Journal of Technology of Education,
13, 4, (2019), 875-887.
[32] Subhash, S. and Cudney, E.A. 2018. Gamified learning in
higher education: A systematic review of the
literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 87(2018) 192-206.
[33] Rahman, M.H.A., Ismail, D. Noor, A.Z.B.M. and Salleh,
N.S.B.M., 2018. Gamification Elements and Their Impacts
on Teaching and Learning–A Review. The International
Journal of Multimedia & Its Applications (IJMA) 10.