computers

Article
Adaptive Gamification in Science Education: An Analysis of the
Impact of Implementation and Adapted Game Elements on
Students’ Motivation
Alkinoos-Ioannis Zourmpakis 1 , Michail Kalogiannakis 2 and Stamatios Papadakis 1, *

1 Department of Preschool Education, Faculty of Education, University of Crete, 74100 Crete, Greece
2 Department of Special Education, University of Thessaly, 38221 Volos, Greece; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: In recent years, gamification has captured the attention of researchers and educators,
particularly in science education, where students often express negative emotions. Gamification
methods aim to motivate learners to participate in learning by incorporating intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational factors. However, the effectiveness of gamification has yielded varying outcomes,
prompting researchers to explore adaptive gamification as an alternative approach. Nevertheless,
there needs to be more research on adaptive gamification approaches, particularly concerning mo-
tivation, which is the primary objective of gamification. In this study, we developed and tested an
adaptive gamification environment based on specific motivational and psychological frameworks.
This environment incorporated adaptive criteria, learning strategies, gaming elements, and all crucial
aspects of science education for six classes of third-grade students in primary school. We employed a
quantitative approach to gain insights into the motivational impact on students and their perception
of the adaptive gamification application. We aimed to understand how each game element experi-
enced by students influenced their motivation. Based on our findings, students were more motivated
to learn science when using an adaptive gamification environment. Additionally, the adaptation
Citation: Zourmpakis, A.-I.;
process was largely successful, as students generally liked the game elements integrated into their
Kalogiannakis, M.; Papadakis, S.
lessons, indicating the effectiveness of the multidimensional framework employed in enhancing
Adaptive Gamification in Science
students’ experiences and engagement.
Education: An Analysis of the Impact
of Implementation and Adapted
Game Elements on Students’ Keywords: adaptive gamification; science education; adapted game elements; students’ motivation
Motivation. Computers 2023, 12, 143.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
computers12070143
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Carlos Vaz
de Carvalho, Hariklia Tsalapatas Educators have consistently prioritized students’ active participation in the classroom
and Ricardo Baptista as a fundamental aspect [1]. With the dynamic influence and continuous progress of
technology, it is essential to develop innovative learning environments that cater to the
Received: 21 June 2023 requirements and interests of contemporary learners, thereby fostering an engaging and
Revised: 10 July 2023
inspiring educational experience [2,3]. The attainment of high levels of student engagement
Accepted: 15 July 2023
and motivation is of great importance, as research has demonstrated its positive impact
Published: 18 July 2023
on academic achievement [4,5]. In recent years, there has been a notable increase in the
utilization of digital games across various domains, including academia [6]. This trend has
sparked the interest of researchers and practitioners, leading to the emergence of a novel
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
approach known as gamification [7]. The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. an ongoing challenge wherein numerous students struggle to effectively regulate their
This article is an open access article motivation, particularly within digital learning settings [8,9].
distributed under the terms and Promoting science education is crucial for the progress of our society and the devel-
conditions of the Creative Commons opment of individuals who possess scientific literacy, enabling them to comprehend and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// appreciate the intricacies of the world [10]. Science education nurtures essential learning
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ skills and fosters attitudes that emphasize the significance of evidence-based decision-making
4.0/). while nurturing social and environmental consciousness. These benefits extend to individuals

Computers 2023, 12, 143. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12070143 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/computers

Computers 2023, 12, 143 2 of 20

regardless of their future involvement in the fields of science and technology [10,11]. Students
at all educational levels have consistently encountered challenges when grasping scientific
concepts [12,13]. The complexity associated with comprehending and understanding science-
related concepts often leads to negative emotions, unfavourable experiences, and diminished
motivation for learning among students [14,15]. However, other factors can influence sci-
ence learning, such as teacher self-efficacy and motivation [16], geographical differences [16],
gender differences [15], and school setting [15].
The increasing popularity of games in our society has sparked significant interest
among educators and instructional developers in a concept known as gamification. Al-
though the term “gamification” was initially introduced in 2008, it was not until 2010 that
it gained broader acceptance [7]. Since then, its popularity has continued to grow steadily
and remains a central concept today [17]. Gamification in education refers to “incorporating
game mechanics, aesthetics, and the cognitive and behavioural aspects associated with
games into non-game-related educational content” [18]. This approach aims to engage and
motivate students, address challenging situations, and enhance the learning experience
through digital materials.
Extensive research has solidified the understanding that gamification holds significant
potential to influence and drive desired changes in behaviour [17,19]. Despite being ap-
plied for nearly a decade, the existing literature on gamification reveals varied outcomes
concerning its effectiveness in enhancing learning and motivation [20]. These mixed re-
sults suggest that the commonly employed “one size fits all” approach to gamification,
which assumes similar reactions from all users towards gamification elements, may be
insufficient [21,22]. The lack of adaptation of game elements and the absence of an appro-
priate didactic approach tailored to the individual needs of each learner, combined with
the frequent presentation of repetitive game elements, can contribute to higher levels of
abandonment over time [23]. Furthermore, the absence of a well-defined and carefully
planned design can also result in adverse outcomes [19,24,25]. It is essential to consider
these parameters when designing a gamified app [26] and implementing it in a classroom
setting [27].
Previous studies have powerfully shown that for gamification to be effective, it should
be adapted to align with users’ expectations and individual preferences [3,28,29]. Indeed,
adapting game elements to cater to individual preferences can be challenging, considering
the diverse range of learners and their varying motivations for learning. However, it is
essential to note that adaptive gamification, which involves tailoring game elements based
on individual user actions, preferences, and characteristics [30], is still a relatively new
concept. There are currently only a limited number of approaches described in the literature,
and even fewer specifically designed to be content-specific and not generic [29,31].
The development of the adaptive gamification environment to teach scientific concepts
related to the water cycle was based on a framework encompassing adaptive criteria,
learning strategies, gaming elements, and all vital aspects of the learning process related to
specific science education [31]. Our main objectives are to understand primary education
students’ motivation and engagement when utilizing an adaptive gamified application
specified for science-related content and the motivational impact game elements had on
students. More specifically, our research questions are:
• What was the motivational impact of this adaptive gamification environment on the
students regarding science education?
• How did the adaptive game elements motivate students?

2. Literature Review
2.1. Adaptable Gamification and Science Education
Overall, the interaction and correlation between students and science education in
schools is often described as problematic. It is believed that there is a decline in motivation,
attitudes, and interest, mainly as students grow up. Similar thoughts are derived when
considering gender differences favouring boys. The motivation to learn science is seen as an
Computers 2023, 12, 143 3 of 20

influential factor in the development of scientific literacy among individuals [32]. Motivation
is crucial in science education and acquiring scientific knowledge and skills [32]. Empirical
studies have already established a connection between motivation to engage in science
and academic performance [33,34]. Even though motivation towards science can impact
the learning process [35], it is essential to note that various factors, like personal interests,
personality traits, and cognitive style, can contribute to individual motivation [34,36].
In recent years, gamification has gained considerable attention as a concept that has
been shown to enhance student engagement and motivation to learn, particularly in various
fields and science education [17,20]. This aspect has become even more crucial as learners
no longer seem as engaged with traditional teaching approaches as they once were [15].
The concept of gamification utilizes game elements and mechanics, known for their ability
to motivate and engage players over extended periods, and applies them to nongame
contexts. Its main goal is to replicate the same level of motivation and engagement for other
purposes beyond gaming [37]. In addition, technological developments have facilitated
the expansion of gamification into digital environments. This includes using applications
or platforms that leverage digital devices such as computers, tablets, or smartphones [38].
As a result, science gamification applications have seen a noticeable increase [17]. Unlike
other educational games, the primary objective of these applications is not solely focused
on learning, although learning is an indirect outcome. The main goal is to modify learner
behaviour or attitude within a specific context [39] (p. 759).
Nevertheless, it is essential to note that motivation varies among individuals, and
different people can be motivated by various elements in specific ways. Consequently, in
a gamified environment, interactions with the game can impact individuals differently
based on their unique motivational factors [26]. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that
gamification has its challenges, as several studies have raised concerns regarding its impact
on learning outcomes and motivation [40,41], including science education [42,43]. As such,
it has become apparent that gamification’s “one size fits all” approach is not enough [22,30].
The nonadaptation of game elements and the appropriate didactic approach to the needs of
each trainee individually, as well as the frequent presentation of similar and repetitive game
elements, can increase abandonment levels in the long run [23]. Users do not necessarily
have the same style when playing and achieving their tasks and goals, and they are usually
motivated by specific game elements and mechanics [44]. Consequently, researchers have
focused on adapting gamified environments to meet students’ characteristics [45,46].
As per the Horizon Report 2021 [47], adaptive learning uses technologies that track
students’ progress and modify instructional approaches by leveraging data and various
information. Adaptive learning technologies “dynamically adapt the level or type of
course content based on an individual’s abilities or skill acquisition. This process involves
automated interventions and interventions from instructors, all aimed at accelerating the
learner’s performance” [48]. Adaptive gamification enhances learner participation by
adapting and integrating different game elements and mechanics according to the user’s
characteristics [30]. It is designed to incorporate specific elements responsive to the learner.
Including all elements relevant to different types of learners carries the risk of creating an
excessive user interface overload [49]. However, adaptive gamification is still in its early
stages [31].
Based on the available literature, adaptive gamification has yielded various out-
comes. While there is evidence supporting the positive motivational impact of adaptive
gamification, such as increased engagement [50], motivation [23,51], and retention [49],
these effects may not apply to all player types [52,53]. Furthermore, there are instances
where students using both adapted and nonadapted game elements have reported similar
flow experiences [54]. In terms of learning performance, students have demonstrated
higher task completion [22] and course completion rates [23], as well as improved learning
outcomes [51]. However, studies investigating student motivation and learning outcomes
still need to be expanded and cannot provide a clear overview. Additionally, according to
Computers 2023, 12, 143 4 of 20

Hallifax et al. [55], conflicting results raise concerns regarding user modelling and selecting
relevant game elements.
As Seaborn and Fels [56] have highlighted, the challenges the adaptive gamification
approach faces are the interplay between gamification elements, dynamics, and user charac-
teristics. They noted the need for an ideal gamification system to integrate game elements
seamlessly. Therefore, the main challenge lies in developing a feasible design and imple-
mentation of adaptive gamification that effectively tackles these concerns. This entails
utilizing customised game elements to match the students’ characteristics and needs.

2.2. Gaming Elements

Game mechanics are a crucial component of gamification applications, and their sig-
nificance becomes even more significant in adaptive gamification. According to Kapp [18],
game application elements encompass various aspects, including challenges, badges, points,
storytelling, etc. These mechanics are employed to enhance engagement and motivation
within the gamified experience. Given their influence on students’ behaviour, engage-
ment, and motivation, it is crucial to recognize, select, and apply game elements within
gamification. Carefully considering and implementing these elements can significantly
impact the overall effectiveness and success of the gamified experience [18,57]. Designing
a successful gamification system is complex and contains several inherent difficulties. It
is important to note that incorporating numerous game elements simultaneously only
sometimes guarantees a practical gamification experience [58]. Indeed, within the literature,
different terminologies are used to define what could be the same game element. This
variation arises because some works employ definitions at different levels of abstraction.
For example, “progression” and “level” may refer to the same game element, depending
on how the gamification system is structured or conceptualized. This highlights the need
for clarity and consensus in defining and categorizing game elements to ensure effective
communication and understanding in gamification research and practice [59].
Furthermore, despite the growing utilization of gamification in education [60], the
assessment of the impact of the various game elements in education needs to be supported
by factual, empirical findings. More rigorous empirical studies and research in this area are
necessary to understand better how specific game elements impact learning outcomes and
student engagement. Following the call for a deeper understanding of incentives in such
contexts [61], it is strongly suggested [62] that additional studies explore the degree to which
game mechanics influence the overall motivations of participants in idea contests. This
highlights how specific game mechanics impact individuals’ motivations and engagement
in collaborative innovation processes such as idea contests.

2.3. Framework
The framework approach employed in the adaptive gamification environment aligns
with the suggestions made by Zourmpakis et al. [31]. This framework revolves around two
key factors. The first factor is the player model, which categorizes students’ preferences
for playing modes and game elements into six categories based on the Hexad model [2,63].
The categories are [64]:
• Achievers: They are primarily driven by a sense of competence. They enjoy engag-
ing in new experiences and taking on challenges to demonstrate their abilities and
accomplishments.
• Players: They are primarily motivated by external rewards. The rewards the system
provides highly influence them, significantly impacting their behaviour, even if unre-
lated to their main progress or objectives. The reward system is crucial in motivating
and shaping their engagement within the gamification environment.
• Philanthropists: They are primarily motivated by a sense of purpose. They derive
satisfaction from helping others and are willing to offer assistance without expecting
anything in return. Their motivation is driven by the desire to contribute and positively
impact others rather than seeking personal rewards or gains.
Computers 2023, 12, 143 5 of 20

• Disruptors: They are primarily motivated by change. Disruptors tend to push the
system’s boundaries, either in a negative manner, such as by spoiling the game for
others, or in a positive manner, such as by identifying flaws and working towards
improving the system. They desire to challenge and disrupt the status quo, seeking
ways to bring change and innovation within the gamified environment.
• Socializers: They are primarily motivated by the need for relatedness. Socializers
are intrinsically motivated by interactions with other players and establishing re-
lationships with them (social relatedness). They find fulfilment and enjoyment in
engaging with others, fostering social connections, and building community within
the gamification context. Interpersonal interactions and social engagement are central
to motivating and satisfying their gaming experience.
• Free spirits: They are mainly motivated by autonomy and self-expression. They have
a strong desire to be in control of their actions and decisions, preferring to explore the
system independently rather than being tightly regulated or controlled. They value
the freedom to express themselves and engage with the gamified environment in ways
that align with their preferences and interests. Autonomy and the opportunity for
self-expression are critical drivers of motivation for free spirits.
The second factor in the proposed framework is learning strategies. Learning strategies
significantly shape the learning process’s goals, objectives, paths, and stages. However,
due to the potential burden of switching between learning strategies and the nature of
science education, the framework focuses on only two preferred learning strategies. This
approach aims to reduce the workload associated with adaptation and familiarize students
with both learning strategies if adaptation is required. The chosen learning strategies also
share common aspects, facilitating the transition between them if necessary. The proposed
approach encompasses two adaptation processes: the adaptation of game elements and the
adaptation of the learning process. Three main points are considered in adapting the game
elements: user feedback, profiling, and adaptation. The system continuously updates the
player’s profile throughout the course. This is achieved through in-app dialogues designed
to gather the user’s feedback and opinions regarding the game elements. At the end of the
lesson, the user is asked questions based on their updated profile. These questions help to
customize the game elements and allow the user to select a game element from the second
and third-player categories, based on their ranking, to be included.
The basic architecture of the proposed adaptive gamification is as follows:
1. The user completes a questionnaire using the Hexad model to create the initial
player profile.
2. The system selects and applies game elements to the environment based on the
player’s profile.
3. The player’s profile is updated throughout the course through in-app dialogues to
gather feedback and preferences.
4. At the end of the lesson, the user is asked questions based on their updated profile to
customize the game elements.
5. The user selects a game element from the second and third player categories to be
included according to the ranking.
6. The system adjusts the gamified environment based on the selected game element
and updates the player’s profile accordingly.
This basic architecture allows for the personalized adaptation of game elements based
on the user’s preferences and feedback, enhancing the overall gamification experience.
The framework utilized in the adaptive gamification environment aligns with and builds
upon the work conducted by Zourmpakis et al. [31] (Figure 1). For a comprehensive
understanding of the adaptive gamification framework, including additional details and
explanations, we recommend referring to the research conducted by Zourmpakis et al. [31].
 This basic architecture allows for the personalized adaptation of game elements
based on the user’s preferences and feedback, enhancing the overall gamification experi-
ence. The framework utilized in the adaptive gamification environment aligns with and
builds upon the work conducted by Zourmpakis et al. [31] (Figure 1). For a comprehensive
understanding of the adaptive gamification framework, including additional details and
Computers 2023, 12, 143 explanations, we recommend referring to the research conducted by Zourmpakis 6 of 20 et al.

[31].

Player type

Assement of feedback
and adaptiation of Game features
users profile

Analyzation of input Learning

and user feedback on strategies
gaming elements

User Game
gameplay/input/inte adaptation
ractions engine

Figure Figure
1. The1. architecture
The architecture
of theofadaptive
the adaptive gamification
gamification environment
environment fromproposal
from the the proposal
of of
Zourmpakis et
Zourmpakis et al. [31].al. [31].

Based Based
on theon the provided
provided guidelines
guidelines and methodology,
and methodology, an adaptive
an adaptive gamification
gamification en- envi-
ronment
vironment calledcalled “Water
“Water Cycle”
Cycle” waswas developed
developed using
using thethe Unity3D
Unity3D gameengine.
game engine.This
This gam-
ification
gamification application
application focuses
focuses onon teaching
teaching phenomena
phenomena related
related to the
to the water
water cycle,
cycle, explicitly
explic-
melting, freezing, boiling, and
itly melting, freezing, boiling, and evaporation. evaporation.
The “Water
The “Water Cycle”Cycle” application
application is designed
is designed as an open-world
as an open-world simulation
simulation environment
environment
incorporating
incorporating avatars.avatars.
After After
the userthe completes
user completes the questionnaire
the questionnaire and creates
and creates a profile,
a profile,
they
they are are presented
presented withthat
with a text a text that describes
describes the game’sthestory
game’s story
based on based on their
their profile andprofile
the and
chosenthe chosenstrategy.
learning learning strategy.
In the Incase
theofcase
exploratory learning,
of exploratory the user
learning, theassumes the role
user assumes theofrole
a friend of a police-
of a friend of a police-
woman, assisting her in investigating various natural phenomena.
woman, assisting her in investigating various natural phenomena. On the other hand, On the other hand, if if
problem-solving
problem-solvinglearning is selected,
learning the user
is selected, thetakes
useron the on
takes rolethe
of role
a police officer’s
of a police assistant
officer’s assistant
and is and
assigned tasks to
is assigned solve
tasks tospecific cases related
solve specific to the water
cases related to the cycle.
water cycle.
FigureFigure
2 illustrates the user’s
2 illustrates freedom
the user’s to navigate
freedom and explore
to navigate the application.
and explore Users Users
the application.
can interact with nonplayer
can interact with nonplayercharacters, engageengage
characters, in conversations, collectcollect
in conversations, materials, conduct
materials, conduct
experiments, and observe real-life phenomena and sounds. This immersive
experiments, and observe real-life phenomena and sounds. This immersive environment environment
Computers 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22
provides users ausers
provides rich and
a richinteractive experience,
and interactive allowing
experience, them to
allowing actively
them participate
to actively in
participate in
and learn about the water cycle through various activities and
and learn about the water cycle through various activities and interactions.interactions.

Figure2.2.Water
Figure WaterCycle
Cyclein-game
in-gameenvironment.
environment.

3. Methodology
This quantitative study was conducted in primary schools of Heraklion, Crete,
Greece. This research was carried out with the main purpose of defining the motivational
Computers 2023, 12, 143 7 of 20

3. Methodology
This quantitative study was conducted in primary schools of Heraklion, Crete, Greece.
This research was carried out with the main purpose of defining the motivational impact of
primary students on the use of adaptive gamification environments in science education
based on their views. The students’ views regarding the game elements they used were
also examined.
Initially, it is essential to acknowledge that the examination of water cycle phenomena
was selected due to its wide range of practical applications in daily life, as we believed it
would captivate students’ interest. Additionally, the water cycle concept and its associated
ideas have been incorporated into the recently developed Comprehensive Curriculum
in Greece, with teacher training already underway. In this study, we utilized a semi-
experimental design with a convenience sample. It occurred in 6 3rd-grade classes in
3 different schools in Heraklion. Students in all classes were taught similarly, using the
adaptive gamification application, which ran exclusively on computers. The students that
collectively took part were 80. Each class followed four lessons. The concepts taught were
coagulation, melting, evaporation, and boiling. The research was implemented in 2 phases.
In the first phase, the four teaching interventions were implemented. In the second phase,
the students completed the questionnaire. Each class’s teachers conducted the lessons. The
elementary teachers were trained beforehand using a theoretical framework centred on
integrating technology into the educational process. The teacher training was therefore
designed based on the TPASK (technological pedagogical science knowledge) model [65] as
it enables the analysis and development of a multifaceted phenomenon such as technology
integration while helping to formulate the kind of knowledge that teachers need in order
to integrate technology while teaching science concepts into the actual classroom setting.
During the research process, we systematically followed all national and international
rules for ethics and ethics in research [66], and permission was obtained from the Ethics
Committee of the PTPE of the University of Crete.
We initiated the process by considering the primary research inquiries when devel-
oping the questionnaire. We then proceeded by consulting the pertinent literature in the
field, explicitly referring to Rajendran et al. [67], Halim et al. [68], and Melkersson and
Lundin [69] for guidance, insights and designing the survey questionnaire. Furthermore,
specific questions were appropriately revised for technological advancements and research
on their content or context. Taggart et al. [70] suggested involving experts in developing
a questionnaire can enhance its content validity. In creating the questionnaire for this
particular study, we employed an iterative approach, which involved the research team in
generating the items and sought input from educational technology experts at the Univer-
sity of Crete to review the questionnaire items. The development process encompassed
multiple cycles of iteration until the final version was reached.
The Likert scale was used as a measurement for data collection. All categories of ques-
tions were scored from 1 to 5 (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree,
strongly agree). In total, the questionnaire provided included two categories of questions.
In the first category, there were questions about students’ motivation and views on learning
science using the adaptive gamification application and their motivation regarding game
mechanisms and elements. Regarding the second category, there were questions about all
the elements and mechanisms included in the application. However, before answering
about a mechanism, students were asked to select whether they had encountered or used
that particular element. Students answered only about game elements they had encoun-
tered and used in the app. Each item had the same six appropriately tailored questions.
The questionnaire included nine questions for Category 1 and 66 questions (11 items) for
Category 2.
It should be noted that in two out of the six classes, there were more students than
there were computers, by a few. In order to avoid splitting the classes in half, some students
were grouped the first time based on their profiling and, more accurately, their dominant
type. This was performed to ensure that the grouped students would have, as much
Computers 2023, 12, 143 8 of 20

as possible, similar characteristics relative to each other. Though this ensured that most
students had similar characteristics, not all students that were put together liked teamwork
necessarily. As such, though the grouped students had roughly similar characteristics
based on their primary player type, some had to cooperate even though they would not
have wanted to. However, students in the free spirits category were not grouped, as this
would have substantially affected their experience. The results were analyzed using the
SPSS statistical package.

4. Results
The first category had nine items, graded on a Likert-type scale of 1 to 5, with the
intent to examine students’ motivation and views about learning science using the adaptive
gamification application. The information collected was organized into Table 1, as presented
below, and was subjected to descriptive analysis.

Table 1. Students’ motivation and views about learning science using the adaptive gamification
application.

Absolutely Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Mean Std

Questions Disagree (%) nor Disagree Agree (%) Average
(%) (%) Agree (%) Deviation

1. I like to learn about natural

phenomena using applications like
0 0 7.5 32.5 60.0 4.53 0.636
the one with the water
cycle application
2. I am interested in learning about
0 3.8 7.5 37.5 51.3 4.36 0.783
natural phenomena in school.
3. I prefer to spend more time learning
about natural phenomena from 5 2.5 22.5 28.8 41.3 3.99 1.097
other subjects.
4. I can learn natural phenomena
using applications such as the 2.5 2.5 6.3 36.3 52.5 4.34 0.899
Water Cycle.
5. I feel more confident learning about
1.3 2.5 13.8 30.0 52.5 4.30 0.892
natural phenomena in a fun way.
6. The classroom lesson on natural
26.3 11.3 17.5 12.5 32.5 3.14 1.613
phenomena is boring.
7. Learning about natural phenomena
such as the water cycle increases my 0 5.0 6.3 31.3 57.5 4.41 0.822
interest in learning.
8. Using apps like the one with the
water cycle makes me want to learn
7.5 1.3 6.3 30.0 55.0 4.24 1.139
more about natural phenomena and
be good at it.
9. Using applications like the Water
Cycle to learn about natural
10.0 2.5 21.3 26.3 40.0 3.84 1.267
phenomena makes me feel less
nervous in class.

Based on Table 1, students showed their substantially high-levelled fondness for

learning science while using the adaptive gamification application (M= 4.53), with 92.5%
agreeing or strongly agreeing (Q1). Though students seem to be highly interested in
learning science concepts in the school setting (Q2) (M = 4.36) and even showed a preference
for science education and would rather spend more time in it than other subjects (M = 3.99),
nearly half of them (45%, agree or strongly agree) consider the traditional teaching that
occurs in the classroom regarding science education to be dull (Q6). Furthermore, this
impacted their level of confidence in learning, as students expressed feeling more assured
in understanding natural phenomena through an enjoyable approach (M = 4.30) (Q5). A
significant 52.5% of students strongly agreed with this notion. However, in contrast to
traditional classroom teaching methods, students reported a significant increase in their
interest in learning through the adaptive gamification environment (mean = 4.41) (Q7).
Only a tiny percentage (5%) expressed disagreement with this statement.
Computers 2023, 12, 143 9 of 20

Additionally, students displayed higher motivation and perceived the application as a

valuable learning tool for studying science (mean = 4.34) (Q4). Moreover, 85.5% of students
agreed or strongly agreed that the application fostered a greater desire to learn and excel
(Q8). Finally, using the application positively affected students’ nervousness (mean = 3.84),
with nearly two-thirds of students agreeing or strongly agreeing that they felt more relaxed
and less nervous while engaging in the learning process (Q9).
The second category aimed to assess the impact of game elements and mechanisms
students encountered in the adaptive gamification environment on their motivation. This
category comprised 11 subcategories, each representing a distinct game element. Within
each subcategory, six questions were modified to convey the same meaning. At the start of
each subcategory, the initial question was to establish whether the student had encountered
that specific element in their playthroughs. If the student had not encountered it, they
would mark “NO” and move on to the following subcategory, skipping the current one. If
the student answered affirmatively, they would respond to the following five questions
within that subcategory. Like the first category, the descriptive analysis examined all
the questions.
Table 2 presents the first two game elements: badges and currency. Among the
80 students, it was found that 60 students had encountered badges in at least one of their
playthroughs, while 61 students had experienced the currency mechanism at some point
during their learning process. In the case of the badges element, students admitted to
being fond of the application since it contained badges (M = 4.23), with almost half of
them strongly agreeing with the notion. Furthermore, the participants expressed their
strong fondness for the badges (M = 4.55), with no one expressing disagreement or strong
disagreement. They also demonstrated significant effort in actively seeking to obtain badges
while using the app (M = 4.33). The majority of students were successful in acquiring the
desired badges (M = 4.03). However, almost one out of three students (36.9%) agreed or
strongly agreed that they experienced nervousness while attempting to collect badges.

Table 2. Badges and currency.

Participants Absolutely Disagree Neither Agree Mean

Questions Strongly Std
Subcategory Answered Disagree (%) nor Disagree Agree (%) Average
Agree (%) Deviation
(%) (%)
I liked the app because it
60 5 0 10 36.7 48.3 4.23 0.998
had badges.
I was actively trying to
60 0 3.3 11.7 33.3 51.7 4.33 0.816
Students’ get badges.
motivation
for badges I collected the badges I
60 3.3 10 15 23.3 48.3 4.03 1.164
wanted to collect.
I loved collecting badges. 60 0 0 11.7 21.7 66.7 4.55 0.699
I got nervous trying to collect
60 46.7 6.7 10 18.3 18.3 2.55 1.641
badges (reversed question).
I liked the app because it had
61 6.6 9.8 19.7 26.2 37.7 3.79 1.24
currency/money.
I was actively trying to 61 4.9 3.3 8.2 29.5 54.1 4.25 1.075
Students’ earn money.
motivation I earned the money I wanted
for currency 61 13.1 11.5 24.6 19.7 31.1 3.44 1.385
to raise.
I liked to earn money. 61 0 1.6 19.7 24.6 54.1 4.31 0.847
I was stressed trying to save
61 36.1 19.7 9.8 18 16.4 2.59 1.532
money (reversed question).

Regarding the in-app currency, the students were highly interested in earning money
(M = 4.31) and actively pursued it within the game (M = 4.25). However, their fondness for
the application decreased slightly due to the currency mechanism (M = 3.79). This decline
could be attributed to their inability to earn the desired amount of money, as only about
half admitted to achieving this goal (50.8% agreed or strongly agreed). Additionally, over
34.4% of participants reported feeling stressed while trying to acquire money (agreed or
strongly agreed).
Computers 2023, 12, 143 10 of 20

As indicated in Table 3, the following game elements include the storytelling/cases

element and points. The data from Table 3 reveals that most students experienced these
elements, with 72 students reporting the point element, while only 3 out of 80 individuals
did not report encountering the storytelling/cases element. The cases/storytelling game
element appears to be highly appreciated, as nearly 9 out of 10 students (88.3%) agreed or
strongly agreed that they enjoyed solving cases (M = 4.47) and liked the application more
because of the inclusion of this specific game element (89.6%) (M = 4.47). Furthermore, a
similarly high percentage of participants expressed their active and enthusiastic engage-
ment with this element (89.6% agree or strongly agree) (M = 4.42) and reported success
in following the story and solving the cases (90.9% agree or absolutely agree) (M = 4.51).
However, almost 3 out of 10 individuals (29.9% agree or absolutely agree) admitted feeling
nervous while attempting to solve the cases.

Table 3. Cases/storytelling and points.

Participants Absolutely Disagree Neither Agree Agree Mean

Questions Strongly Std
Subcategory Answered Disagree (%) nor Disagree (%) Agree (%) Average Deviation
(%) (%)
I liked the game because it
77 1.3 1.3 7.8 28.6 61 4.47 0.804
had cases.
I was actively trying to
77 2.6 1.3 6.5 31.2 58.4 4.42 0.879
solve the cases.
Students’
motivation for the I investigated and solved
cases/storytelling the cases to the best of 77 3.9 0 5.2 23.4 67.5 4.51 0.912
my ability.
I liked solving cases. 77 1.3 1.3 9.1 26 62.3 4.47 0.821
I used to get nervous when
solving cases 77 40.3 13 16.9 13 16.9 2.53 1.535
(reversed questions).
I liked the app because it
72 4.2 0 13.9 41.7 40.3 4.14 0.954
had points.
I was actively trying to 72 4.2 2.8 1.4 33.3 58.3 4.39 0.972
score points.
Students’
motivation for I collected the points I
points 72 5.6 9.7 16.7 22.2 45.8 3.93 1.237
wanted to collect.
I liked to score points. 72 5.6 1.4 4.2 26.4 62.5 4.39 1.042
I used to get nervous when
I was trying to score points 72 41.7 20.8 8.3 11.1 18.1 2.43 1.555
(reversed question).

Regarding the points element, the majority of participants expressed their fondness for
it (M = 4.39), and nearly 8 out of 10 individuals (80%, agree or absolutely agree) appreciated
the adaptive gamification environment more because it included this specific game element
(M = 4.14). Most students were highly focused and made significant efforts to accumulate
points (M = 4.39). However, not all students successfully attained the desired points, as
approximately 2 out of 3 (67%) agreed or strongly agreed that they could collect the points
they wanted (M = 3.93). Furthermore, almost 1 out of 3 participants (33%) reported feeling
nervous (agree or strongly agree) while trying to earn points.
Table 4 presents the motivation levels related to the gift and levels of game elements.
According to Table 4, a small number of students (24 participants) encountered or noticed
the gift game element, whereas most students (76 out of 80) experienced the level mecha-
nism. As indicated in Table 4, a few students (24 participants) encountered or noticed the
gift game element. However, despite the limited exposure to this element, the students
showed a strong affinity towards it (M = 4.50) and liked the application because of its
inclusion (M = 4.54). Surprisingly, none of these students disagreed with the gift game
element (disagree or absolutely disagree). Most students actively engaged with the gift
game element and tried to acquire gifts (M = 4.21). Two out of three students (66.7% agree
or absolutely agree) reported successfully collecting a significant number of the gifts they
desired (M = 4.00). However, similar to previous findings, almost three out of ten individu-
als (29.2%) experienced significant stress (agreed or absolutely agreed) while engaging with
Computers 2023, 12, 143 11 of 20

the gift game element. The levels element was also well-received, with 84.2% of participants
liking this specific game element (M = 4.39).

Table 4. Gifts and levels.

Participants Absolutely Disagree Neither Agree Agree Mean

Questions Strongly Std
Subcategory Answered Disagree (%) nor Disagree (%) Average
Agree (%) Deviation
(%) (%)
I liked the app because it
24 0 0 4.2 37.5 58.3 4.54 0.588
had gifts.
I was actively trying to
24 8.3 0 8.3 29.2 54.2 4.21 1.179
Students’ get gifts.
motivation
for gifts I collected the gifts I wanted
24 8.3 0 25 16.7 50 4 1.251
to collect.
I like collecting gifts. 24 0 0 12.5 25 62.5 4.5 0.722
I used to get nervous when
collecting gifts 24 41.7 12.5 16.7 16.7 12.5 2.46 1.503
(reversed question).
I liked the app because it
76 1.3 0 17.1 36.8 44.7 4.24 0.831
had levels.
I was actively trying to
76 2.6 5.3 10.5 19.7 61.8 4.33 1.038
Students’ climb levels.
motivation
for levels I raised to the level I 76 9.2 9.2 18.4 22.4 40.8 3.76 1.325
wanted to.
I liked going up levels. 76 1.3 1.3 13.2 25 59.2 4.39 0.865
I used to get nervous when
trying to go up levels 76 47.4 21.1 9.2 3.9 18.4 2.25 1.533
(reversed question).

Additionally, 80.5% of students were fond of the application because it included the
element of the level (M = 4.24) (agreed or absolutely agreed). Furthermore, a significant ma-
jority of students (81.5%) actively attempted to reach higher levels during their playthrough
(M = 4.33), with nearly two out of three students (66.7%) successfully achieving this goal
(agreed or absolutely agreed) (M = 3.76). The stress levels associated with levelling up were
relatively low, as only about one out of five students (22.3%) absolutely agreed or agreed
that they felt nervous while trying to progress to higher levels.
Based on the data in Table 5, 61 students came across the promotion element, while
57 students cooperated with other peers and essentially used the cooperation element. The
promotion element was highly regarded, as most students expressed their fondness for
this element (M = 4.43) and approved of the adaptive gamification environment because of
its inclusion (M = 4.30). Additionally, nearly three out of four individuals (77.1% agree or
absolutely agree)) actively made an effort to get promoted during their gameplay (M = 4.13),
and approximately seven out of ten students (72.1% agree or absolutely agree) successfully
achieved their desired promotion (M = 4.00). However, it is worth noting that a fair
number of students (31.1% agree or absolutely agree) reported feeling stressed concerning
the promotion element. The cooperation element garnered significant appreciation, as
many individuals expressed their fondness for working with other students (86% agree or
absolutely agree) (M = 4.26).
Similarly, the same percentage of students liked the application specifically because it
included the cooperation mechanism (86% agree or absolutely agree) (M = 4.36). However,
it is worth noting that the negative responses for both questions were around 10%, one
of the highest among all the other game elements. Furthermore, a substantial majority
of students (80.7%) agreed or absolutely agreed that they actively tried to cooperate with
their peers (M = 4.09), and the same percentage believed that they were successful in
achieving cooperation based on their perspective (M = 4.25). Unfortunately, the stress
levels reported by the students concerning the cooperation element were relatively high,
with 42.1% agreeing or strongly agreeing that they felt stressed. This could be understood
considering that a few students were not keen on working together, leading to higher stress
levels than other game elements.
Computers 2023, 12, 143 12 of 20

Table 5. Promotion and cooperation.

Participants Absolutely Disagree Neither Agree Agree Mean

Questions Strongly Std
Subcategory Answered Disagree (%) nor Disagree (%) Average
Agree (%) Deviation
(%) (%)
I liked the app because I
61 1.6 0 14.8 34.4 49.2 4.3 0.843
could get promoted.
I was actively trying to get
61 3.3 6.6 13.1 27.9 49.2 4.13 1.087
promoted.
Students’
motivation for I got the promotions I
promotion 61 6.6 6.6 14.8 24.6 47.5 4 1.225
wanted in the app.
I liked getting promoted. 61 1.6 1.6 6.6 32.8 57.4 4.43 0.826
I used to get nervous when
trying to get promoted 61 42.6 16.4 9.8 9.8 21.3 2.51 1.619
(reversed question).
I liked the app because I
could collaborate with/help 57 5.3 5.3 3.5 22.8 63.2 4.33 1.123
other students.
I actively tried to cooperate
57 7 5.3 7 33.3 47.4 4.09 1.184
with/help other students.
Students’
motivation for I cooperated/helped the
cooperation other students I 57 1.8 7 10.5 26.3 54.4 4.25 1.023
wanted to help.
I liked working
57 5.3 3.5 5.3 31.6 54.4 4.26 1.078
with/helping other students.
I was stressed when trying to
cooperate/help other 57 38.6 14 5.3 14 28.1 2.79 1.719
students (reversed question).

The following two game elements, as highlighted in Table 6, include challenges and
customization. According to the methodology employed in the adaptive gamification
environment, all profiles created by the dominant player type and the two higher player
types lead to the inclusion of the challenges in all possible profiles. As depicted in Table 6, all
participants noticed and experienced the element of the challenge, while only 25 individuals
encountered the customization element. Students demonstrated a strong affinity for the
element of the challenge, with 88.8% agreeing or agreeing that they enjoyed facing and
overcoming challenges (M = 4.39). Furthermore, 85.1% of students agreed or absolutely
agreed that including challenges in the application made them appreciate it more (M = 4.24).
Most students actively worked to overcome the challenges they encountered (M = 4.31),
and most expressed satisfaction in successfully overcoming the challenges they set out to
do (M = 4.03). However, like other game elements, nearly 3 out of 10 students reported
feeling nervous while attempting to resolve the challenges.
Regarding the customization element, students displayed a significant fondness for
the ability to change their appearance (M = 4.08). However, they could have appreciated
the adaptive gamification environment more due to the inclusion of this game mechanism
(M = 3.81). A total of 15% of the students stated that they did not like or dislike the
application because it contained this element, the highest among all other elements. This
response is understandable, considering the data presented in Table 6. Although students
actively tried to change their appearance (M = 4.04), only a few could do so to the extent
they desired, as more than half of the students stated that they could not achieve their
desired customization (57.7% absolutely disagree or disagree). Fortunately, the stress levels
associated with the customization element were similar to some of the other game elements,
with 23.1% of students reporting significant stress levels (agree or absolutely agree).
Table 7 illustrates the last game element included in the application, the roles game
element. According to the data, almost all participants (except for 2) noticed and experi-
enced the roles game element. This element received highly positive feedback (M = 4.47),
with 91.1% of participants (agree or absolutely agree) expressing their liking for having a
role in the application. Additionally, an almost similar percentage (93.6%, agree or abso-
lutely agree) expressed fondness for the application due to the inclusion of this element
(M = 4.53). Students showed great interest and actively engaged in “playing” their roles
(M = 4.45), with approximately 8 out of 10 students (80.7%, agree or absolutely agreeing)
Computers 2023, 12, 143 13 of 20

succeeding in improving their role during gameplay (M = 4.22). However, nearly 1 out of
4 individuals reported feeling nervous to a significant degree (agree or absolutely agree)
while participating in their assigned roles.

Table 6. Challenges and customization.

Participants Absolutely Disagree Neither Agree Agree Mean

Questions Strongly Std
Subcategory Answered Disagree (%) nor Disagree (%) Average
Agree (%) Deviation
(%) (%)
I liked the app because it
80 2.5 2.5 10 38.8 46.3 4.24 0.917
had challenges.
I was actively trying to
80 3.8 1.3 11.3 27.5 56.3 4.31 0.988
overcome challenges.
Student
motivation for I overcame the challenges I
the challenges 80 6.3 7.5 13.8 22.5 50 4.03 1.232
wanted to overcome.
I like to overcome challenges. 80 2.5 5 3.8 28.8 60 4.39 0.961
I used to get nervous when
overcoming challenges 80 51.3 11.3 8.8 13.8 15 2.3 1.562
(reversed question).
I liked the game because of
26 11.5 3.8 19.2 23.1 42.3 3.81 1.357
the change in appearance.
I was actively trying to
26 0 11.5 15.4 30.8 42.3 4.04 1.038
change my appearance.
Student I managed to change my
motivation for appearance as many times 26 42.3 15.4 19.2 7.7 15.4 2.38 1.499
customization as I wanted.
I like to change 26 0 4 32 16 48 4.08 0.997
my appearance.
I used to get anxious when I
tried to change my 26 50 7.7 19.2 15.4 7.7 2.23 1.423
appearance
(reversed question).

Table 7. Roles.

Participants Absolutely Disagree Neither Agree Agree Mean

Questions Strongly Std
Subcategory Answered Disagree (%) nor Disagree (%) Average
Agree (%) Deviation
(%) (%)
I liked the game because
78 1.3 5.1 5.1 32.1 61.5 4.53 0.716
I had a role.
I was actively trying to
78 0 2.6 9 29.5 59 4.45 0.767
“play” my role.
Student
motivation for I wanted to and succeeded in
the roles improving my role 78 9 2.6 7.7 19.2 61.5 4.22 1.255
within the application.
I liked having a role
78 0 2.6 6.4 32.1 59 4.47 0.734
within the app.
I was nervous when I had a
role within the app 78 48.7 10.3 12.8 10.3 17.9 2.38 1.589
(reversed question).

5. Discussion
The current research study provides valuable insights into the field of adaptive gam-
ification, particularly in the context of science education. While limited research exists
on gamification in science education [17], and even fewer studies focus specifically on
students’ motivation using adaptive gamification applications, most existing studies gener-
ally compare gamification and adaptive gamification in a general manner [71]. This study
acknowledges that students’ motivational aspects can be influenced by their activities and
the specific domain or content [59]. Therefore, drawing generalized conclusions about
the affordances of adaptive gamification becomes challenging. The objective of this study
is to offer an understanding of the motivational impact of a domain-specific adaptive
gamification framework on students in the field of science education, as well as how the
gaming elements they encountered influenced them.
In terms of motivational aspects, the findings of this study indicate that participants
displayed a higher level of motivation towards learning science when using an adaptive
Computers 2023, 12, 143 14 of 20

gamification environment. Students strongly preferred the application as a means of

learning science, with no students disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. They also reported
an increased interest in learning through this approach, with only a tiny percentage (5%)
expressing disagreement. These results demonstrate that students felt motivated and highly
interested in learning science when incorporating the adaptive gamification environment.
Additionally, a significant portion of students found traditional classroom lessons boring.
However, the data suggests that it is not the content that discourages students from learning
science, as they demonstrated a high interest in learning about natural phenomena and
even preferred science over other subjects. Students associated their confidence with the
“fun” aspect of learning, indicating that a more engaging and enjoyable learning approach
can significantly impact their level of engagement and confidence. This is evident because
students believed they could learn science concepts through the application and were
willing to enhance their understanding of natural phenomena through its use. This finding
aligns with previous studies indicating that gamification environments, which offer an
enjoyable approach to learning, can enhance student engagement and foster a greater
willingness to engage with similar applications in the future [72]. Furthermore, many
students reported feeling less nervous during the learning process when using the adaptive
gamification environment, which increased their attentiveness in the classroom and their
readiness to improve their performance in science lessons.
In addition, we examined the impact of game elements on students’ motivation. It
is important to note that the game elements and mechanisms were not implemented
simultaneously in this adaptive gamification application. Our framework employed a
multidimensional adaptive design, unlike most previous studies that followed a single-
dimensional personalization approach [71]. This design allowed for runtime adaptation,
resulting in a more comprehensive personalization [31]. Based on our findings, it became
evident that at least some students experienced adaptation in their profiles, leading to
variations in the game elements they encountered. This was reflected in the number of ele-
ments reported by students and the possible combinations they experienced. These insights
highlight the dynamic and personalized nature of the adaptive gamification approach used
in this study [31].
Based on these findings, the adaptation process was largely successful, as students
generally liked the game elements integrated into their lessons. However, the meagre
negative ratings regarding the likeness and appreciation of the application suggest that
either the adaptation was applied to a small number of individuals or it was implemented
on a limited scale, such as switching between closely related user types (e.g., player and
achiever) or adjusting the secondary and tertiary dominant user types. Nevertheless,
regardless of the specifics, the multidimensional framework, which considered more than
just a single user type, effectively enhanced students’ experiences and engagement. A
similar study also supports this conclusion [71].
Additionally, it was observed that badges, storytelling/cases, gifts, and roles received
the most positive feedback from students and contributed to their appreciation of the
application. This suggests that students’ motivation is greatly influenced by their immersion
in the storytelling aspect, the role they assume within the application, and the rewards
that symbolize their status and self-improvement. The connection between immersion in
storytelling/narrative elements and its positive impact on student engagement aligns with
findings from other studies [73]. Similarly, the positive relationship between badges and
student motivation and engagement has been documented in previous research [19]. These
findings further support that these game elements effectively enhance students’ motivation
and engagement in the learning process.
What is more, the satisfaction of individuals with using game elements did not neces-
sarily impact their level of active engagement or fondness for the application. Lower scores
in satisfaction did not lead to a corresponding decrease in fondness of the application.
However, user satisfaction was generally lower than active engagement and fondness,
except for cases/storytelling, roles, and cooperation. This suggests that students were
Computers 2023, 12, 143 15 of 20

primarily satisfied by the immersive aspects of the application, which is consistent with the
findings of Aldemir et al. [73], highlighting the importance of immersion for the storytelling
element to affect motivation and engagement. The application has room for improvement
concerning other game elements, particularly in customization, levels, and currency, which
received lower satisfaction scores.
Regarding cooperation, it is not easy to draw confident conclusions about student
satisfaction since it was also used by some students who may have yet to be inclined to use
it. Students were less active in the cooperation element, but their satisfaction was higher.
This indicates that even though some students did not put in their maximum effort to
cooperate with others, possibly because they did not have a strong desire for it, the results
were better than expected, resulting in higher satisfaction. We cannot make assumptions
about the specific user types and their interactions with most of the game elements, as we
need to have information about the profile of each user and the ability for user types to
change during gameplay. However, all user profiles consistently utilized the challenges
game element [31]. It was found that challenges received high approval rates among all
user types, promoting high levels of active engagement and satisfaction [73]. This suggests
that the intrinsic motivation for accomplishment has a noticeable effect on the achiever
type [64] and all user types. However, it is impossible to determine to what extent each
user type is affected by this game element.
Moreover, games are commonly associated with stress reduction for individuals [74].
Based on our findings, most game elements did not induce high-stress levels, as the
percentage of individuals who agreed or mostly agreed that a game element or mechanism
made them anxious was generally below 30%. However, this differed for the cooperation,
badges, and currency elements. The higher level of anxiety reported for the cooperation
element can be understood since some students were required to cooperate even if they
did not want to. The previous literature has shown that badges can generate a certain level
of anxiety [69], which aligns with our results. However, the same does not apply to the
currency element. The anxiety associated with this element is likely a result of students
being highly active and striving to earn money during their playthrough but ultimately
failing to do so.
Consequently, not being able to accumulate enough money to make in-game purchases
and acquire items they had set their minds on could contribute to their anxiety. Furthermore,
the element of the challenge involved the use of timers, as difficulty and assistance were
linked to time. However, students did not report higher stress levels than most other game
elements, contrasting with findings from other research studies [75].

6. Limitations
The present study has certain limitations. Adaptive gamification was introduced
to enhance the effectiveness of one-size-fits-all gamification. While we examined the
motivational outcomes of students in the adapted gamification environment, we did not
compare it to a one-size-fits-all gamification approach. As a result, this study cannot provide
definitive results on whether this objective was achieved. Additionally, our findings are
limited to the specific game elements incorporated in our adaptive gamification approach.
We did not include every game element mentioned in gamification literature, such as
leaderboards and team chats. Different outcomes may be observed by integrating these or
other game elements.
Moreover, in this study, we did not consider other essential user characteristics re-
garding gamification, such as gender differences. In addition, each learning course was
carried out by the teacher of that class. Though all teachers had been trained to use the
adaptive gamification environment before teaching in the school setting, it is still possible
to have affected students’ motivation from the learning experience. Furthermore, knowing
students’ profiles would provide more insight into the accuracy of the Hexad typology, the
frequency of profile changes, whether changes occurred collectively or individually, and
the frequency of adjustments, particularly to the dominant profile. Additionally, it would
Computers 2023, 12, 143 16 of 20

offer a more detailed and precise understanding of how each game element affects each
profile [3,76]. Finally, this study needs to be more extensive concerning our results’ context
dependency and generalizability. Long-term studies could also ensure that the motivational
outcomes are not due to the novelty effect. The framework used was specifically designed
for the science education learning environment, and results may differ in other domains, as
Hallifax et al. [3] suggested.

7. Conclusions
This article showcased the results of a quantitative semi-experimental investigation
into the impact of adaptive gamification on learner motivation and perceptions in science
education. The study was conducted in four primary schools located in Heraklion, Crete,
Greece. The data collected and analyzed involved 80 students from six distinct classes who
had completed four custom-designed learning modules focused on water cycle science
concepts. These modules incorporated a specialized adaptive gamification framework
tailored to the subject matter.
Our findings offer new perspectives and enhance the utilization of adaptive gamifi-
cation. We discovered valuable insights into how to customize gamification, particularly
by demonstrating that the Hexad user typology is one of the most relevant approaches for
identifying user preferences regarding game elements. However, in this implementation,
the adaptation of game elements and learning strategies was not solely based on a single
user type. We recognized that motivations can be fluid and may change during gameplay.
Therefore, the foundation for adaptation was the learner’s profile rather than a static adap-
tation that classifies individuals solely based on their user profiles after an initial selection,
as proposed in the literature [2,55].
Nonetheless, since the appropriate game element is tailored to the specific learner
profile, it still promotes self-determination. The results obtained by examining each game
element emphasize that they have varying effects on learners’ motivation, as shown by
previous research [75]. It is crucial to exercise caution when suggesting game elements to
learners, as these elements may have conflicting impacts depending on their profiles [75].
According to Hallifax et al. [3], user motivation in tailored gamification is influenced by
two significant factors: implementing a specific motivational strategy and selecting the user
typology or profile. Both factors are considered in this case, with the results being extremely
positive. However, it is essential to note that teachers also play a crucial role. Though
the teachers in this study had volunteered and were trained in utilizing this application
in class, the inability to effectively utilize digital content from a pedagogical standpoint
has been shown to impact students negatively, such as increased discouragement and
reduced learning motivation [77,78]. Thus, considering that the influence of teachers’ views
and attitudes is essential when introducing new teaching methodologies into the learning
process, it is crucial to maximize a learning tool’s positive benefits on students’ motivation
to learn [27,79].
Moreover, future research is recommended to examine personalization’s effects in user
studies conducted over an extended period. This would enable investigating whether the
enhanced user experience translates into improved performance over time. Alternatively,
offering users the option to decide whether they want to use the system regularly would
provide further insights into potential effects on user behaviour, and this aspect could be
explored in future studies as well.
Additional studies that address our research’s limitations and explore the effectiveness
of similar adaptive gamification applications in science education would be beneficial.
These studies could validate and generalize the results while providing valuable insights
for future design modifications to enhance the learning experience. Additionally, it is crucial
to investigate learning achievements. Measuring both learning outcomes and motivational
aspects is equally important to comprehensively assess adaptive gamification’s effective-
ness in education. By examining the impact on learning outcomes, such as knowledge
retention and skill acquisition, alongside motivational factors, we can better understand
Computers 2023, 12, 143 17 of 20

the effectiveness and potential benefits of implementing adaptive gamification in the learn-
ing process [72,80]. Consequently, properly developing applications for science teaching
concepts is crucial for motivating students to actively participate and engage with the ma-
terial [17,81]. Moreover, the development of similar content-specific adaptive gamification
environments holds the potential to benefit other subject areas beyond science education.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.-I.Z., M.K. and S.P.; methodology, A.-I.Z., M.K. and
S.P.; software, A.-I.Z.; validation, A.-I.Z., M.K. and S.P.; formal analysis, A.-I.Z., M.K. and S.P.;
investigation, A.-I.Z., M.K. and S.P.; resources, A.-I.Z., M.K. and S.P.; data curation, A.-I.Z., M.K.
and S.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.-I.Z., M.K. and S.P.; writing—review and editing,
A.-I.Z., M.K. and S.P.; visualization, A.-I.Z., M.K. and S.P.; supervision, A.-I.Z., M.K. and S.P.; project
administration, A.-I.Z., M.K. and S.P. All co-authors contributed to data collection and/or analysis of
project results. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Amado, C.M.; Roleda, L.S. Game Element Preferences and Engagement of Different Hexad Player Types in a Gamified Physics
Course. In Proceedings of the 2020 11th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management, and E-Learning, Osaka,
Japan, 10–12 January 2020; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 261–267.
2. Lavoué, É.; Monterrat, B.; Desmarais, M.; George, S. Adaptive Gamification for Learning Environments. IEEE Trans. Learn.
Technol. 2019, 12, 16–28. [CrossRef]
3. Hallifax, S.; Serna, A.; Marty, J.C.; Lavoué, É. Adaptive Gamification in Education: A Literature Review of Current Trends and
Developments. In Proceedings of the Transforming Learning with Meaningful Technologies: 14th European Conference on Technology
Enhanced Learning, Delft, The Netherlands, 16–19 September 2019; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 11722, pp. 294–307.
4. Gunuc, S. The Relationships between Student Engagement and Their Academic Achievement. Int. J. New Trends Educ. Their
Implic. 2014, 5, 199–214.
5. Wara, E.; Aloka, J.O.; Benson, C.O. Relationship between Emotional Engagement and Academic Achievement among Kenyan
Secondary School Students. Acad. J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2018, 7, 107–118. [CrossRef]
6. Damaševičius, R.; Maskeli, R.; Blažauskas, T. Serious Games and Gamification in Healthcare: A Meta-Review. Information 2023,
14, 105. [CrossRef]
7. Rodrigues, L.F.; Oliveira, A.; Rodrigues, H. Main Gamification Concepts: A Systematic Mapping Study. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01993.
[CrossRef]
8. Sakkir, G.; Dollah, S.; Ahmad, J. E-Learning in COVID-19 Situation: Students’ Perception. EduLine J. Educ. Learn. Innov. 2021, 1,
9–15. [CrossRef]
9. Tan, C. The Impact of COVID-19 on Student Motivation, Community of Inquiry and Learning Performance. Asian Educ. Dev.
Stud. 2021, 10, 308–321. [CrossRef]
10. Council, N.R. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; The National Academies
Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
11. Obe, W.H. The Teaching of Science in Primary Schools, 7th ed.; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2018.
12. Bilal, E.; Erol, M. Hypothesis-Experiment-Instruction (HEI) Method for Investigation and Elimination of Misconceptions on
Friction. Balk. Phys. Lett. 2010, 18, 269–276.
13. Alesandrini, A.T.; Heron, P.R. Types of Explanations Students Use to Explain Answers to Conceptual Physics Questions. In
Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference, Provo, UT, USA, 24–29 July 2019; American Association of Physics Teachers:
College Park, MD, USA, 2019; pp. 21–25.
14. Brígido, M.; Borrachero, A.B.; Bermejo, M.L.; Mellado, V. Prospective Primary Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Emotions in Science
Teaching. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2013, 36, 200–217. [CrossRef]
15. Fortus, D.; Vedder-Weiss, D. Measuring Students’ Continuing Motivation for Science Learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2014, 51, 497–522.
[CrossRef]
16. Taştan, S.B.; Davoudi, S.M.M.; Masalimova, A.R.; Bersanov, A.S.; Kurbanov, R.A.; Boiarchuk, A.V.; Pavlushin, A.A. The Impacts
of Teacher’s Efficacy and Motivation on Student’s Academic Achievement in Science Education among Secondary and High
School Students. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2018, 14, 2353–2366. [CrossRef]
17. Kalogiannakis, M.; Papadakis, S.; Zourmpakis, A.-I. Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 22. [CrossRef]
Computers 2023, 12, 143 18 of 20

18. Kapp, K.M. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. Int.
J. Gaming Comput. Mediat. Simul. 2012, 4, 81–83. [CrossRef]
19. Bai, S.; Hew, K.F.; Huang, B. Does Gamification Improve Student Learning Outcome? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis and
Synthesis of Qualitative Data in Educational Contexts. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 30, 100322. [CrossRef]
20. Zainuddin, Z.; Chu, S.K.W.; Shujahat, M.; Perera, C.J. The Impact of Gamification on Learning and Instruction: A Systematic
Review of Empirical Evidence. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 30, 100326. [CrossRef]
21. Klock, A.C.T.; da Cunha, L.F.; de Carvalho, M.F.; Rosa, B.E.; Anton, A.J.; Gasparini, I. Gamification in E-Learning Systems: A
Conceptual Model to Engage Students and Its Application in an Adaptive e-Learning System. In Proceedings of the Learning and
Collaboration Technologies: Second International Conference, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2–7 August 2015; Springer: Cham, Switzerland,
2015; Volume 9192, pp. 595–607.
22. Jagušt, T.; Botički, I.; So, H.J. Examining Competitive, Collaborative and Adaptive Gamification in Young Learners’ Math Learning.
Comput. Educ. 2018, 125, 444–457. [CrossRef]
23. Hassan, M.A.; Habiba, U.; Majeed, F.; Shoaib, M. Adaptive Gamification in E-Learning Based on Students’ Learning Styles.
Interact. Learn. Environ. 2019, 29, 545–565. [CrossRef]
24. Toda, A.M.; Valle, P.H.D.; Isotani, S. The Dark Side of Gamification: An Overview of Negative Effects of Gamification in Education.
In Proceedings of the Communications in Computer and Information Science, Moscow, Russia, 17–21 September 2018; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2018; Volume 832, pp. 143–156.
25. Koivisto, J.; Hamari, J. The Rise of Motivational Information Systems: A Review of Gamification Research. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019,
45, 191–210. [CrossRef]
26. Botte, B.; Bakkes, S.; Veltkamp, R. Motivation in Gamification: Constructing a Correlation Between Gamification Achievements
and Self-Determination Theory. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Games and Learning Alliance, Laval, France, 9–10
December 2020; Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2020; Volume 12517, pp. 157–166.
27. Zourmpakis, A.I.; Papadakis, S.; Kalogiannakis, M. Education of Preschool and Elementary Teachers on the Use of Adaptive
Gamification in Science Education. Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2022, 14, 1–16. [CrossRef]
28. Lopez, C.; Tucker, C. Toward Personalized Adaptive Gamification: A Machine Learning Model for Predicting Performance. IEEE
Trans. Games 2020, 12, 155–168. [CrossRef]
29. Monterrat, B.; Lavoué, É.; George, S. Adaptation of Gaming Features for Motivating Learners. Simul. Gaming 2017, 48, 625–656.
[CrossRef]
30. Codish, D.; Ravid, G. Personality Based Gamification–Educational Gamification for Extroverts and Introverts. In Proceedings of the
9th CHAIS Conference for the Study of Innovation and Learning Technologies: Learning in the Technological Era, Ra’anana, Israel, 11–12
February 2014; The Open University of Israel: Ra’anana, Israel, 2015; pp. 36–44.
31. Zourmpakis, A.-I.; Kalogiannakis, M.; Papadakis, S. A Review of the Literature for Designing and Developing a Framework for
Adaptive Gamification in Physics Education. In The International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Teaching Physics; AIP
Publisher: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 1–26. [CrossRef]
32. Glynn, S.M.; Brickman, P.; Armstrong, N.; Taasoobshirazi, G. Science Motivation Questionnaire II: Validation with Science Majors
and Nonscience Majors. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48, 1159–1176. [CrossRef]
33. Velayutham, S.; Aldridge, J.; Fraser, B. Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Students’ Motivation and
Self-Regulation in Science Learning. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33, 2159–2179. [CrossRef]
34. Schumm, M.F.; Bogner, F.X. The Impact of Science Motivation on Cognitive Achievement within a 3-Lesson Unit about Renewable
Energies. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2016, 50, 14–21. [CrossRef]
35. Schönfelder, M.L.; Bogner, F.X. Between Science Education and Environmental Education: How Science Motivation Relates to
Environmental Values. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1968. [CrossRef]
36. Zeyer, A. Motivation to Learn Science and Cognitive Style. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2010, 6, 121–128. [CrossRef]
37. Deterding, S. Gamification: Designing for Motivation. Interactions 2012, 19, 14–17. [CrossRef]
38. Klock, A.C.T.; Ogawa, A.N.; Gasparini, I.; Pimenta, M.S. Does Gamification Matter? A Systematic Mapping about the Evaluation
of Gamification in Educational Environments. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Pau, France, 9 April
2018; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 7, pp. 2006–2012.
39. Landers, R.N. Developing a Theory of Gamified Learning. Simul. Gaming 2014, 45, 752–768. [CrossRef]
40. De-Marcos, L.; Domínguez, A.; Saenz-De-Navarrete, J.; Pagés, C. An Empirical Study Comparing Gamification and Social
Networking on E-Learning. Comput. Educ. 2014, 75, 82–91. [CrossRef]
41. Rachels, J.R.; Rockinson-Szapkiw, A.J. The Effects of a Mobile Gamification App on Elementary Students’ Spanish Achievement
and Self-Efficacy. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2018, 31, 72–89. [CrossRef]
42. Rose, J.A.; O’Meara, J.M.; Gerhardt, T.C.; Williams, M. Gamification: Using Elements of Video Games to Improve Engagement in
an Undergraduate Physics Class. Phys. Educ. 2016, 51, 055007. [CrossRef]
43. Henukh, A.; Guntara, Y. Analyzing the Response of Learners to Use Kahoot as Gamification of Learning Physics. Gravity J. Ilm.
Penelit. Dan Pembelajaran Fis. 2020, 6, 72–76. [CrossRef]
44. Böckle, M.; Novak, J.; Bick, M. Towards Adaptive Gamification: A Synthesis of Current Developments. In Proceedings of the
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 5–10 June 2017; pp. 158–174.
Computers 2023, 12, 143 19 of 20

45. Santos, W.O.D.; Bittencourt, I.I.; Vassileva, J. Design of Tailored Gamified Educational Systems Based on Gamer Types. In
Proceedings of the Congresso Brasileiro de Informática na Educação; SBC: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2018; pp. 42–51.
46. Rapp, A.; Hopfgartner, F.; Hamari, J.; Linehan, C.; Cena, F. Strengthening Gamification Studies: Current Trends and Future
Opportunities of Gamification Research. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2019, 127, 1–6. [CrossRef]
47. Pelletier, K.; Brown, M.; Brooks, D.C.; Mccormack, M.; Reeves, J.; Arbino, N.; Bozkurt, A.; Crawford, S.; Czerniewicz, L.; Gibson,
R.; et al. 2021 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report, Teaching and Learning Edition; EDUCAUSE: Boulder, CO, USA, 2021.
48. Werbach, K.; Hunter, D.; Dixon, W. For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business; Wharton Digital Press:
Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2012; Volume 1.
49. Monterrat, B.; Desmarais, M.; Lavoué, É.; George, S. A Player Model for Adaptive Gamification in Learning Environments. In
Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence in Education: 17th International Conference, Madrid, Spain, 22–26 June 2015; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2015; Volume 9112, pp. 297–306.
50. Mora, A.; Tondello, G.F.; Nacke, L.E.; Arnedo-Moreno, J. Effect of Personalized Gameful Design on Student Engagement. In
Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 17–20 April 2018; IEEE
Computer Society: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1925–1933.
51. Roosta, F.; Taghiyareh, F.; Mosharraf, M. Personalization of Gamification-Elements in an e-Learning Environment Based on
Learners’ Motivation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Telecommunications (IST), Tehran, Iran, 27–28 September
2016; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 637–642.
52. Nacke, L.E.; Bateman, C.; Mandryk, R.L. BrainHex: A Neurobiological Gamer Typology Survey. Entertain. Comput. 2014, 5, 55–62.
[CrossRef]
53. Oliveira, W.; Bittencourt, I.I. Tailored Gamification to Educational Technologies; Springer: Singapore, 2019; ISBN 9789813298118.
54. Oliveira, W.; Isotani, S.; Toda, A.M.; Palomino, P.T.; Vassileva, J.; Shi, L.; Bittencourt, I.I. Does Tailoring Gamified Educational
Systems Matter? The Impact on Students’ Flow Experience. In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA, 7–10 January 2020; pp. 1226–1235.
55. Hallifax, S.; Lavoué, E.; Serna, A. To Tailor or Not to Tailor Gamification? An Analysis of the Impact of Tailored Game Elements
on Learners’ Behaviours and Motivation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Ifrane,
Morocco, 6–10 July 2020; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 12163, pp. 216–227.
56. Seaborn, K.; Fels, D.I. Gamification in Theory and Action: A Survey. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2015, 74, 14–31. [CrossRef]
57. Nand, K.; Baghaei, N.; Casey, J.; Barmada, B.; Mehdipour, F.; Liang, H.-N. Engaging Children with Educational Content via
Gamification. Smart Learn. Environ. 2019, 6, 6. [CrossRef]
58. Fitz-Walter, Z.; Johnson, D.; Wyeth, P.; Tjondronegoro, D.; Scott-Parker, B. Driven to Drive? Investigating the Effect of Gamification
on Learner Driver Behavior, Perceived Motivation and User Experience. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 71, 586–595. [CrossRef]
59. Hallifax, S.; Serna, A.; Marty, J.C.; Lavoué, G.; Lavoué, E. Factors to Consider for Tailored Gamification. In Proceedings of the Annual
Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Barcelona, Spain, 22–25 October 2019; Association for Computing Machinery,
Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 559–572.
60. Scheiner, C.; Haas, P.; Bretschneider, U.; Blohm, I.; Leimeister, J.M. Obstacles and Challenges in the Use of Gamification for Virtual
Idea Communities. In Gamification; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 65–76.
61. Majchrzak, A.; Malhotra, A. Towards an Information Systems Perspective and Research Agenda on Crowdsourcing for Innovation.
J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2013, 22, 257–268. [CrossRef]
62. Scheiner, C.W. The Motivational Fabric of Gamified Idea Competitions: The Evaluation of Game Mechanics from a Longitudinal
Perspective. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2015, 24, 341–352. [CrossRef]
63. Mora, A.; Riera, D.; González, C.; Arnedo-Moreno, J. Gamification: A Systematic Review of Design Frameworks. J. Comput. High.
Educ. 2017, 29, 516–548. [CrossRef]
64. Tondello, G.F.; Wehbe, R.R.; Diamond, L.; Busch, M.; Marczewski, A.; Nacke, L.E. The Gamification User Types Hexad Scale. In
Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Austin, TX, USA, 16 October 2016; Association for
Computing Machinery, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 229–243.
65. Jimoyiannis, A. Designing and Implementing an Integrated Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge Framework for Science
Teachers Professional Development. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 1259–1269. [CrossRef]
66. Petousi, V.; Sifaki, E. Contextualising Harm in the Framework of Research Misconduct. Findings from Discourse Analysis of
Scientific Publications. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 23, 149–174. [CrossRef]
67. Rajendran, T.; Bin Naaim, N.A.; Yunus, M.M. Pupils Motivation And Perceptions Towards Learning English Using Quizvaganza.
Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2019, 9, 220–227. [CrossRef]
68. Halim, M.S.A.A.; Hashim, H.; Yunus, M.M. Pupils’ Motivation and Perceptions on ESL Lessons through Online Quiz-Games.
J. Educ. e-Learn. Res. 2020, 7, 229–234. [CrossRef]
69. Melkersson, J.; Lundin, J. Gamification Badges vs Leaderboards as a Motivational Tool for University Students Learning a Second Language;
Malmö University: Malmö, Sweden, 2022.
70. Taggart, J.; Hood, N. Determinants of Autonomy in Multinational Corporation Subsidiaries. Eur. Manag. J. 1999, 17, 226–236.
[CrossRef]
Computers 2023, 12, 143 20 of 20

71. Rodrigues, L.; Palomino, P.T.; Toda, A.M.; Klock, A.C.T.; Oliveira, W.; Avila-Santos, A.P.; Gasparini, I.; Isotani, S. Personalization
Improves Gamification: Evidence from a Mixed-Methods Study. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction,
Salamanca, Spain, 6 October 2021; ACM: New York, NY, USA; Volume 5, pp. 1–25.
72. Papadakis, S.; Zourmpakis, A.I.; Kalogiannakis, M. Analyzing the Impact of a Gamification Approach on Primary Students’
Motivation and Learning in Science Education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning,
Madrid, Spain, 26–29 September 2023; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; Volume 633, pp. 701–711.
73. Aldemir, T.; Celik, B.; Kaplan, G. A Qualitative Investigation of Student Perceptions of Game Elements in a Gamified Course.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 78, 235–254. [CrossRef]
74. Carlier, S.; Van der Paelt, S.; Ongenae, F.; De Backere, F.; De Turck, F. Empowering Children with ASD and Their Parents: Design
of a Serious Game for Anxiety and Stress Reduction. Sensors 2020, 20, 966. [CrossRef]
75. Reyssier, S.; Hallifax, S.; Serna, A.; Marty, J.C.; Simonian, S.; Lavoue, E. The Impact of Game Elements on Learner Motivation:
Influence of Initial Motivation and Player Profile. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2022, 15, 42–54. [CrossRef]
76. Klock, A.C.T.; Gasparini, I.; Pimenta, M.S.; Hamari, J. Tailored Gamification: A Review of Literature. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud.
2020, 144, 102495. [CrossRef]
77. Bozkurt, A.; Sharma, R.C. Education in Normal, New Normal, and Next Normal: Observations from the Past, Insights from the
Present and Projections for the Future. Asian J. Distance Educ. 2020, 15, i–x. [CrossRef]
78. Ferdig, R.E.; Baumgartner, E.; Hartshorne, R.; Kaplan-Rakowski, R.; Mouza, C. Teaching, Technology, and Teacher Education during
the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stories from the Field; AACE: Waynesville, NC, USA, 2019; ISBN 9781939797490.
79. Teo, T. Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes towards Computer Use: A Singapore Survey. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2008, 24, 413–424.
[CrossRef]
80. Mekler, E.D.; Brühlmann, F.; Tuch, A.N.; Opwis, K. Towards Understanding the Effects of Individual Gamification Elements on
Intrinsic Motivation and Performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 71, 525–534. [CrossRef]
81. Xezonaki, A. Gamification in Preschool Science Education. Adv. Mob. Learn. Educ. Res. 2022, 2, 308–320. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.