Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
An Improved Point Cloud Upsampling Algorithm for X-ray Diffraction on Thermal Coatings of Aeroengine Blades
Next Article in Special Issue
Creating Audio Object-Focused Acoustic Environments for Room-Scale Virtual Reality
Previous Article in Journal
Bonding Performance of Steel Rebar Coated with Ultra-High-Performance Concrete
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 13
10.3390/app12136809
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Augmented Reality and Gamification in Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Research, Applications, and Empirical Studies

by
Georgios Lampropoulos
1,2,*,
Euclid Keramopoulos
1,
Konstantinos Diamantaras
1 and
Georgios Evangelidis
3
1
Department of Information and Electronic Engineering, International Hellenic University, 57400 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
School of Humanities, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patras, Greece
3
Department of Applied Informatics, University of Macedonia, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(13), 6809; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136809
Submission received: 14 May 2022 / Revised: 19 June 2022 / Accepted: 2 July 2022 / Published: 5 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mixed Reality Games—Playful Experiences in Immersive and Interactive Media)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Prisma flow diagram.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Countries in which the experiments/studies were carried out.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Empirical studies: educational stages.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Empirical studies: developmental categories.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Empirical studies: research methods.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Empirical studies: operating systems.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Empirical studies: devices used.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Proposal and prototype papers: educational stages.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study scrutinizes the existing literature regarding the use of augmented reality and gamification in education to establish its theoretical basis. A systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was conducted. To provide complete and valid information, all types of related studies for all educational stages and subjects throughout the years were investigated. In total, 670 articles from 5 databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, IEEE, and ERIC) were examined. Based on the results, using augmented reality and gamification in education can yield several benefits for students, assist educators, improve the educational process, and facilitate the transition toward technology-enhanced learning when used in a student-centered manner, following proper educational approaches and strategies and taking students’ knowledge, interests, unique characteristics, and personality traits into consideration. Students demonstrated positive behavioral, attitudinal, and psychological changes and increased engagement, motivation, active participation, knowledge acquisition, focus, curiosity, interest, enjoyment, academic performance, and learning outcomes. Teachers also assessed them positively. Virtual rewards were crucial for improving learning motivation. The need to develop appropriate validation tools, design techniques, and theories was apparent. Finally, their potential to create collaborative and personalized learning experiences and to promote and enhance students’ cognitive and social–emotional development was evident.

1. Introduction

Rapid technological advancements have drastically affected all aspects of life, including education. This fact has contributed to the development of the interdisciplinary field of educational technology, which has undoubtedly impacted the teaching and learning process, environments, approaches, and methods by integrating technological applications into the educational process [1]. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the integration of technologies into education [2,3].
Nowadays, students are digital natives as they have grown up in a digitalized world; as such, they can easily handle digital devices and media on a daily basis [4]. As access to information is instant from any place at any time, a student’s way of acquiring knowledge and becoming informed has changed significantly [5]. Moreover, students form their personality in the light of flexible communities while requiring social interactions and prompt responses, and pursuing to be directly connected [6]. As a result, students’ educational requirements have drastically shifted and so have their perspectives on what they regard as effective learning. They are seeking meaningful and personalized learning based on experiences and more engaging learning environments, which will motivate them to participate and perform better [7]. Moreover, students prefer to be actively involved in the educational process and not simply be passive listeners and onlookers [8].
Furthermore, learning is more natural, meaningful, and efficient when it places student inquiries at its core, enhances 21st-century skills development of students, addresses social issues, and is used in conjunction with information and communication technologies (ICT) [9,10]. Therefore, when state-of-the-art technologies are at the forefront and are used to their fullest potential in a student-centered manner, they can address these issues by providing deeper and more meaningful learning [11]. In addition, with digital devices and emerging technologies being adopted in teaching and learning activities at a rapid pace [12], non-digital and ineffective learning and teaching tools are replaced, existing educational processes are amplified and new educational methods and approaches are offered [13].
Therefore, to provide high-quality education and meet students’ needs, technology-enhanced learning should be adopted. Nonetheless, emphasis should be put on students’ skills, knowledge, personality traits, interests, and preferences as well as on constantly motivating, encouraging, and engaging them [14]. Using augmented reality and gamification in the educational process can contribute toward improving the educational process and the development of 21st-century skills, which can be divided into intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cognitive competence domains, and are fundamental to the learning process [15]. Due to its immersive, interactive, and engaging nature, augmented reality can be applied in numerous subjects of all educational stages while yielding educational benefits and creating new learning opportunities and potentials [16,17]. Gamification positively affects the educational process as it helps integrate game mechanisms and elements into teaching and learning activities, which in turn provide students with more intriguing, motivating, and engaging experiences that have the potential to increase their academic performance [18,19].

Justification, Aims, and Research Questions

Aiming at addressing students’ new and upcoming needs and requirements, education is transforming by integrating new technologies and technological paradigms into its process more actively [20]. The COVID-19 pandemic has further demonstrated the significance of incorporating new technologies and applying new approaches in education and the need to alter conventional learning environments and activities [21]. The combinational use of augmented reality and gamification has the potential to help toward the realization of this transformation, while at the same time yielding several educational merits and opportunities. Moreover, augmented reality and gamification share common attributes and both intrigue and motivate students to participate more actively and perform better in educational activities.
Although there have been several studies that examined the use of augmented reality and gamification in education separately, little is known regarding how they can affect education when used in combination. Consequently, the aim of this study was to carry out a systematic literature review to scrutinize the existing knowledge and studies concerning the use of augmented reality and gamification in education to establish its theoretical basis. In that view, this systematic literature review examines all types of related studies for all educational stages and subjects throughout the years. To guide the research, the following research questions (RQ) have been designed:
  • RQ1: What are the benefits of combining and integrating augmented reality and gamification into the educational process?
  • RQ2: What is the distribution among empirical studies, proposal and prototype papers, as well as review, conceptual, and theoretical papers?
  • RQ3: In which countries have most related studies been carried out?
  • RQ4: What have been the main findings of the related studies regarding the use of augmented reality and gamification in education?
  • RQ5: At which educational stage is the use of augmented reality and gamification more commonly applied?
  • RQ6: What is the main focus of the studies regarding students’ cognitive and social–emotional development?
  • RQ7: What sample has mostly been used in the experiments of the related research?
  • RQ8: What have been the most relevant objectives and aims of the studies concerning the use of augmented reality and gamification in education?
  • RQ9: Which are the main areas, topics, and subjects the use of augmented reality and gamification is more widely studied and applied?
  • RQ10: What measurements (research instruments, tools, methods, and variables) are mostly used in the studies regarding the use of augmented reality and gamification in education?
  • RQ11: What development tools, methodologies, and operating systems are mostly used to develop educational augmented reality applications?
  • RQ12: What devices are mostly used to carry out augmented reality experiments?
  • RQ13: What gamification mechanisms and elements are mostly used in gamified educational augmented reality applications?
  • RQ14: What areas, topics, and subjects do the proposed applications, frameworks, methodologies, and models focus on?
  • RQ15: Do the main findings of the different types of studies (empirical studies, proposals, and prototype papers, as well as review, conceptual, and theoretical papers) examined lead to the same conclusions?

2. Augmented Reality in Education

Augmented reality aims at enhancing users’ physical environment as it is perceived through their senses by enriching it with virtual objects and data. Particularly, augmented reality uses technological applications of computer units to generate a mixed reality in which real and virtual objects co-exist in real-time [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Augmented reality constitutes a flexible and interactive technology that can be further enriched when combined with other novel technologies [29]. Furthermore, due to its ability to present interactive content to users and change their perceptions, augmented reality has greatly influenced several domains and the educational sector is no exception [30]. As it combines the real environment with digital information, augmented reality is able to develop new learning environments and experiences as well as promote an active and interrelated learning process. Augmented reality has a close relationship to education, e-learning, gamification, as well as human–computer interaction, and through their 3D model representation and animations can improve memory retention and motivation [31]. Augmented reality helps break the barriers of formal education and enhances and promotes high-quality education, anywhere and at any time [32]. These facts, in combination with the growing popularity [33] and effectiveness in both teaching and learning activities, have led to an annual increase in both the quality and quantity of studies regarding augmented reality in educational settings [34]. Recent systematic review, scientific mapping, and bibliometric studies have presented both the benefits that can be yielded when integrating augmented reality into educational settings in a student-centered manner and some of its drawbacks and limitations [27,35,36,37,38,39,40].
Through the immersive, enjoyable, and realistic learning experiences that augmented reality provides, learning environments that support and promote inclusive, collaborative, situated, autonomous, problem-based, and ubiquitous learning can be created [17,41,42,43,44]. Compared with traditional learning environments, immersive augmented reality environments can offer more interactive experiences [45] while also reducing the resources, money, and time spent [46]. Additionally, students find the overall experience more intriguing and enjoyable, and as they become more motivated and engaged in the learning activities, they participate more actively and willingly, and as a result, their learning achievements, academic performance, knowledge acquisition, long-term retention, as well as their cognitive development are improved [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. As students become aware of and experience the benefits yielded by being involved in augmented reality-learning environments, they develop more positive attitudes toward technology-enhanced learning and digital inclusion.
The benefits of augmented reality outweigh its current limitations, and as it helps break the barriers of formal education and enhances and promotes high-quality education, anywhere and at any time, augmented reality can be integrated into all educational stages while supporting both teachers and students at the same time [16,17,32,36,57,58,59]. Although it can help prepare the future specialists of the upcoming technological era by providing the appropriate and necessary training [60], to reap the educational benefits of augmented reality to the fullest, it is crucial to adopt the (appropriate for each case) pedagogical approaches [61]. As augmented reality is an interactive technology that is closely connected to the real world and is gradually moving toward maturity, it can be integrated into several learning subjects [62,63,64]. Some subjects that augmented reality has been successfully applied to are: science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) education [65,66,67], geometry [68], physics [44], chemistry [64,69], astronomy [70], mathematics [50], medical and healthcare education [71,72,73], anatomy [74], art [48], sports and physical education [75,76], geography [77], music [78], natural science [49], environmental science [79], language learning [80,81], history and cultural heritage education [82,83], vocational education [84], etc.

3. Gamification in Education

As several game theories and design approaches heavily depend on the same psychological theoretical backgrounds as learning, the gamification of the educational process was inevitable [85]. Since its first emergence, gamification has grown into a flourishing multidisciplinary field with near-limitless applications [86]. Gamification is not related to play or playfulness but to games, gamefulness, gameful interactions, and designs and can be defined as the use of game design elements, properties, atoms, and aspects within non-game contexts to improve user experience (UX), as well as user motivation, empowerment, and engagement [87,88]. Hence, as gamification draws its inspiration from games and capitalizes on the various game elements that keep users engaged and engrossed to make the whole experience more intriguing, challenging, and enjoyable, it can have the same outcomes in different contexts and activities [89,90].
In the context of education, gamification uses game mechanics, thinking, and aesthetics to promote learning and active participation, attract students’ interest, and motivate them to perform better [91]. Several positive results have been reported, which highlight the potential of applying gamification in combination with both traditional and novel methodologies within educational settings to improve students’ overall learning experience, motivate and engage them, and develop desired behavior [92]. Additionally, gamification implements motivational affordances to bring about improved psychological and behavioral outcomes [93]. As a result, gamification enhances students’ learning achievements and academic performance, self-efficacy, and retention while concomitantly leading to positive behavioral and psychological changes, to a different extent, depending on the context and the characteristics of the students and the educational material, though [94,95,96].
Several recent systematic literature review, scientific mapping, meta-analysis, and bibliometric studies have examined the impact of gamification on education and have presented the benefits of applying gamification within educational settings as well as the drawbacks and the limitations that need to be addressed to reap the merits of gamification to the fullest [18,19,97,98,99,100,101,102,103]. Due to the effectiveness of its integration into teaching and learning activities within pedagogical contexts, gamification is regarded as a valid didactic method, which has the potential to be used in combination with several technologies and other learning methods and approaches [104,105]. Within educational contexts, gamification promotes friendly competition, rewards effort, motivates and engages students using game elements, which they are already familiar with [7]. Therefore, gamification has already been implemented and evaluated within several educational subjects, such as science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics (STEAM) [106,107], language learning [108,109], medical and healthcare education [110,111,112], anatomy [113], sports and physical education [114,115], geometry [116], chemistry [117,118], physics [119], mathematics [120,121], astronomy [122], geography [123], environmental science [124,125], natural science [126], history and cultural heritage education [127,128], music [129], and vocational education [130].

4. Methodology

4.1. Research Design

In order to answer the above-mentioned research questions and meet the aims set, a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was carried out [131]. As the topic analyzed was specific and involved empirical studies, case studies, reviews, proposals, as well as theoretical papers, the systematic literature review was deemed as an appropriate approach and the PRISMA statement was selected due to its highly strict rules and standards as well as the fact that it is a well-established method that is successfully applied in various topics, including education, offering comprehensive insights [132,133,134].
In order for a scientifically rigorous study to be conducted, 5 databases and a thorough combination of keywords were used to identify the related documents. More specifically, the databases SCOPUS, Web of Science (WoS), IEEE, Google Scholar, and ERIC were used. It is worth noting that through SCOPUS and WoS databases, the largest number of related documents and the most accurate ones were retrieved. This fact is in line with them being regarded as high-impact scientific databases [135].

4.2. Systematic Literature Review Process

Data was retrieved in January 2022. With a view to covering all the literature around this specific topic throughout all the previous years, no year limitation was set. A pertinent and thorough search equation was used to report the literature on the state-of-the-art while addressing all educational stages and topics. Consequently, and due to the interdisciplinary nature of the topic, the following query using wildcards and logical operators was used: “(‘augmented reality’) AND (‘gamif*’) AND (‘education’ OR ‘universit*’ OR ‘college*’ OR ‘school*’ OR ‘student*’ OR ‘pupil*’ OR ‘teach*’ OR ‘learn*’)”. In SCOPUS, WoS, IEEE, and ERIC databases, the search involved the title, abstract, and keyword parameters, while in Google Scholar the “allintitle” operator was used along with the keywords in consecutive order (e.g., ‘augmented reality’ AND ‘gamification’ AND ‘education’; ‘augmented reality’ AND ‘gamification’ AND ‘university’, etc.).
The whole process, which is displayed in Figure 1, followed and abided by all the steps and guidelines of the PRISMA statement. Initially, 670 documents were reported in the 5 databases (314 in SCOPUS, 204 in WoS, 80 in IEEE, 53 in Google Scholar, and 19 in ERIC). Of these documents, 220 were duplicates and were not included. Hence, 450 documents were screened. The main inclusion criteria were the combinational use of augmented reality and gamification elements, the reference to the educational context, and the studies involving either an empirical study, the development of an educational application, a proposal or prototype, a systematic review, or theoretical contributions. In total, 316 documents did not meet the research criteria and were excluded from the study. All of the 134 documents that were sought for retrieval were successfully retrieved. Therefore, 134 documents were examined for eligibility. In addition, 21 studies were excluded as they did not meet the necessary research criteria. Consequently, 113 studies were included and analyzed in the review.
The 113 studies identified were divided into three categories; that is, (1) empirical studies (73 articles, pct. = 64.6%), (2) proposal and prototype papers (design-oriented without being applied in educational contexts) (27 articles, pct. = 23.9%), and (3) review, conceptual, and theoretical papers (13 articles, pct. = 11.5%) (RQ2). The review, conceptual, and theoretical papers were scrutinized and their main findings were identified. Regarding the proposal and prototype articles, suggestions, guidelines, practices, areas of focus, and findings were also examined and analyzed. The empirical studies were analyzed and compared according to the following variables:
  • Country in which the experiments were conducted;
  • Educational stage;
  • Focus area;
  • Developmental category;
  • Sample;
  • Main aims;
  • Research method;
  • Main variables;
  • Measurement—research instruments and tools;
  • Application name;
  • Application development methodology;
  • Development tools;
  • Operating system;
  • Devices used in the experiment;
  • Gamification elements;
  • Main findings.

5. Results

A mixed-method research approach was adopted as both qualitative analysis and descriptive quantitative analysis were used to analyze the data [136]. The results acquired from the analysis of the articles and their variables from all three categories are presented below. Particularly, the results are categorized as those concerning the empirical studies (general information, research methods, variables and tools, application development information, and gamification elements, as well as main findings) in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, the proposal and prototype papers (general information, country, and aims) in Table 5 and the review, conceptual and theoretical papers (general information, aims, and main findings) in Table 6.
The complete results of the countries in which the studies took place are displayed in Figure 2, as a total and based on their categories. The countries (RQ3) that mostly carried out empirical study research into the use of augmented reality and gamification are: Portugal, China, Malaysia, Spain, Taiwan, and Greece. The countries that carried out proposal and suggestion papers are: Greece, the United States, Hungary, Italy, and Mexico. The countries that mostly contributed with reviews, conceptual and theoretical papers are: Spain, the United States, and Portugal. Finally, based on the total amount of articles published, the countries that examined the use of augmented reality and gamification in education more actively were: Spain, Greece, Portugal, the United States, China, Malaysia, and Taiwan.
Due to the number of variables and studies, the information is clustered and displayed accordingly on different tables to improve readability. Specifically, Table 1 depicts the main information of the empirical studies, Table 2 showcases their research methods, variables, and tools, Table 3 presents their application development information and gamification elements, while Table 4 quotes their main findings (RQ4).
Based on the above-presented information, several observations can be made. Figure 3 depicts the results regarding the educational stage, which the articles emphasized. Most of the studies focused on higher education (freq. = 31, pct. = 42.47%), followed by primary education (freq. = 20, pct. = 27.4%), secondary education (freq. = 11, pct. = 15.07%), and K-12 education (freq. = 7, pct. = 9.59%) (RQ5). In total, 4 (5.48%) studies did not specify the educational stage or age of the participants. As it can be seen in Figure 4, the majority of studies focused on students’ cognitive development (freq. = 63, pct. = 86.30%), 2 (2.74%) studies focused on students’ social–emotional development, 3 (4.11%) studies emphasize both students’ cognitive and social–emotional development, while 5 (6.85%) studies did not give any specification (RQ6). Although some studies analyze and take teachers’ viewpoints into account, the majority of the studies use students as the main participants (RQ7). Despite the fact that the goals of the studies are diverse, most of them aim at improving students’ learning experience and academic performance while increasing their motivation and engagement and providing them with an intriguing and enjoyable learning environment (RQ8). When clustering the main areas of focus of the given studies, the majority of them focused on STEAM-related fields, particularly computer science and mathematics, followed by language learning, medical and healthcare education, culture and history, as well as literacy skills (RQ9).
Moreover, the research methods that the studies of this category used are displayed in Figure 5. The majority of the studies used quantitative approaches (freq. = 45, pct. = 61.64%) followed by qualitative (freq. = 14, pct. = 19.18%) and mixed (freq. = 14, pct. = 19.18%) methods (RQ10). Although most of the questionnaires and surveys used were ad hoc, popular, and validated in the field of education questionnaires, such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [209,215], Instructional Material Motivation Survey (IMMS) [214], Presence Questionnaire [216], Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) [227], Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) [225], Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ) [211], System Usability Scale (SUS) [222], Goal–Question–Metric (GQM) [229], and the Flow Experience Questionnaire [212] were also used. Some studies followed guidelines and adopted items in their survey from questionnaires, such as those presented in [210,215,218,220,221,223,224,226,230,231] (RQ10). The main variables used were related to students’ motivation, viewpoints, and learning outcomes (RQ10).
Furthermore, a lack of a thorough display of examples of the developed applications, a detailed description of the methods, tools, and particularly of the approaches used for their development, technical, as well as provision of resources and repositories for readers to use and test the applications themselves was evident. Some examples of development methodologies, models, and approaches used during the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) were: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model [81,232], incremental development [138], waterfall model [138,139], agile methodology [140], quasi-experimental design [141], and the octalysis framework [142] (RQ11). Future studies should provide such information so that it would be possible to answer key research questions, such as how specific development methodologies and approaches affect the success of adopting and using technologies and applications in education. Although most of the studies (freq. = 36, pct. = 49.32%) did not specify the particular operating system on which their application was running, from the ones that did, android (freq. = 24, pct. = 32.88%) was the preferred operating system, followed by iOS (freq. = 6, pct. = 8.22%), both android and iOS (freq. = 5, pct. = 6.85%) and Windows Holographic OS (freq. = 2, pct. = 2.74%), as it can also be seen in Figure 6 (RQ11). This fact can be justified when taking into consideration the operating systems’ worldwide market share [233] and the fact that the most popular augmented reality Software Development Kits (SDKs) natively support the development of applications for the Android operating system. The Unity platform (freq. = 26, pct. = 35.62%) was the most widely used development tool along with Vuforia engine and SDK (freq. = 15, pct. = 20.55%) (RQ11). It is worth noting that the majority of the studies (freq. = 34, pct. = 46.85%) did not specify which development tools were used for the creation of their application. Regarding the devices used during the experiments (Figure 7), mobile devices had the overwhelming majority as they were used in a total of 61 studies (83.56%) with only a few studies utilizing specialized equipment, such as Microsoft HoloLens (freq. = 2, pct. = 2.74%), HTC Vive Pro HMD (freq. = 1, pct. = 1.37%), Leap Motion Controller (freq. = 1, pct. = 1.37%), and Touchizer [228] (freq. = 1, pct. = 1.37%), while 7 (9.59%) studies did not specify the particular devices that were used (RQ12). As far as the gamification elements used are concerned, the applications mostly used points, scores, leaderboards, game-like features, mini games and puzzles, virtual rewards (e.g., badges, achievements, tokens, etc.), objectives, quests and tasks, quiz questions, challenges and difficulty levels, instant feedback, timer, and digital storytelling (RQ13). Moreover, studies capitalized on students’ competitive spirit and collaborative learning activities. Role-play and digital storytelling were also the main aspects of certain applications while other studies used additional external material in the form of cards, board games, slides, learning sheets, etc.
Furthermore, Table 5 depicts the basic information regarding the proposal and prototype studies, such as country and aims. The country, aims, and main findings of the review, conceptual, and theoretical papers are displayed in Table 6.
Table
Table 5. Proposal and prototype papers: general information.
Table 5. Proposal and prototype papers: general information.
Ref.CountryAims
[232]MalaysiaTo explore how using gamification and augmented reality can engage students in language learning.
[234]AustraliaTo examine how augmented reality and tangible user interfaces can assist in learning computer science concepts and programming skills, such as debugging.
[235]HungaryTo showcase how gamified elements and augmented reality can provide immersive practicing exercises.
[236]SpainTo enhance the educational process of teaching and learning mathematics through the combinational use of gamification and augmented reality.
[237]United StatesTo showcase how the use of blockchain and augmented reality can assist in keeping track of digital assets in virtual spaces.
[238]GermanyTo present a gamification concept for augmented reality virtual laboratories to increase students’ practical skills.
[239]HungaryTo explore how augmented reality tools that utilize gamification elements can increase students’ spatial skills.
[240]GreeceTo showcase how an extended reality platform that uses gamification can support conventional educational practices in laboratory-based training.
[241]ItalyTo present an augmented reality application enriched with game design elements to facilitate university students’ learning about human anatomy.
[242]IndiaTo design and create an augmented reality game that promotes primary school students’ programming skills development.
[243]SpainTo showcase the potential of using gamified augmented reality experiences through mobile applications in educational context.
[244]United StatesTo propose an interdisciplinary approach using augmented reality and gamification elements to support students’ mathematics learning.
[245]The NetherlandsTo present a framework for creating mixed reality gamification applications to allow students to train in immersive 3D environments.
[246]FinlandTo show how an augmented reality application can support and guide students during their orientation week.
[247]United StatesTo suggest how an augmented reality escape room could support and enrich a wide range of learning experiences.
[248]GreeceTo present the developmental process of creating an augmented reality application that uses gamification aspects to support learning and teaching activities.
[249]ArgentinaTo present a gamified augmented reality application that aims at supporting collaborative learning, enriching students’ learning experiences, and increasing teacher–student interaction.
[250]ThailandTo propose a gamified augmented reality application to enhance students’ grit.
[251]MexicoTo explore how augmented reality applications that use gamification elements can support and increase students’ reading abilities as a means to further strengthen their personal, work, and social relations.
[252]GreeceTo evaluate whether mixed reality digital games can support and enhance future learning and teaching of various educational contexts.
[253]ItalyTo show a prototype gamified augmented reality application that aims to improve cultural heritage learning.
[254]RomaniaTo showcase the results of applying a gamified augmented reality application to facilitate foreign language learning while making it more enjoyable.
[255]BrazilTo propose an augmented reality framework that uses gamification elements to facilitate and support the learning process of students with intellectual disabilities.
[256]TaiwanTo present the benefits of using content-aware augmented reality applications in educational settings.
[257]GreeceTo explore how gamified augmented reality experiences can support lifelong learning and cultural education based on an augmented reality application, which focuses on the subject of science.
[258]GreeceTo explore how augmented reality and gamification can facilitate and support the comprehension of subject-specific matters while engaging learners in an enjoyable experience.
[259]MexicoTo present the development of an augmented reality mobile application that uses gamification elements to improve students’ geography knowledge.
Table
Table 6. Review, conceptual, and theoretical papers: general information.
Table 6. Review, conceptual, and theoretical papers: general information.
Ref.CountryAimsMain Findings
[260]United StatesTo discuss the history of instructional design and technology field in four time periods while presenting technologies such as augmented reality, gamification, mobile learning, etc.In order for new technologies to be adopted in education, teachers should realize their value, experience positive effects themselves, and feel confident and comfortable when using them. Learning and instructional design theories have evolved to technology-centered to address the new requirements.
[261]PhilippinesTo propose a supplementary learning tool framework for developing educational applications using augmented reality, Unity, and Vuforia to enhance the learning process.Augmented reality and gamification as supplementary learning tools are effective.
[262]SpainTo present the key elements that must be taken into account when creating online tools that utilize gamification and augmented reality.When combined with gamification, mixed reality applications can offer several benefits to students and the educational process.
[263]PortugalTo comprehend and analyze the gaming strategies that can be used in immersive technologies to improve foreign language learning.Using gaming strategies along with immersive technologies, and particularly augmented reality can facilitate and enhance foreign language learning.
[264]SpainTo present a research project that applies an instructional technology-based model in a bilingual education context using augmented reality and gamification.The use of gamification and augmented reality resulted in several educational benefits, such as improved health awareness, engagement, and linguistic skills, and increased physical exercise.
[265]PortugalTo provide an overview of the concepts of immersive learning systems and gamification strategies.n/a
[266]United KingdomTo analyze the existing virtual and augmented reality taxonomies while focusing on their interconnection with gamification elements.A proposed taxonomy and its facets were presented, which classify immersive technologies based on several attributes, including gamification.
[267]AustraliaTo present the advances made in the educational sector via the Unity game engine and to showcase how it can contribute to teaching students to use immersive technologies.Practices were suggested to better implement gamification and mixed reality applications in education during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[268]ChinaTo examine the factors of an augmented reality application design that can better support students’ early language acquisition.The main augmented reality learning activities and design strategies were presented. Specifically, the use of game mechanisms with a discovery strategy improved students’ motivation.
[269]United StatesTo showcase how gaming technology innovations in the form of digital games and augmented reality can impact education and particularly in the field of health and physical education.n/a
[270]SpainTo present and analyze some indicative applications and activities that use ICT, including games and augmented reality in teaching activities.Augmented reality, gamification, and mobile learning have the potential to reshape educational practices and offer improved learning outcomes.
[271]IndiaTo examine how augmented reality, gamification, and adaptive learning can increase the engagement of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).When adopted by MOOCs, augmented reality, gamification, and adaptive learning can lead to more interactive, pervasive, and engaging learning environments in diverse educational domains.
[272]United StatesTo present instructional design principles that can assist in the development of improved augmented reality learning experiences.Fantasy, challenge, and curiosity are the main design principles that can leverage the unique affordances of augmented reality in education.
The majority of the proposal and prototype papers focused on higher education (freq. = 10, pct. = 37.04%), followed by primary education (freq. = 6, pct. = 22.22%), K-12 education (freq. = 5, pct. = 18.52%) and secondary education (freq. = 1, pct. = 3.7%) (Figure 8). In total, 5 (18.52%) studies did not specify the educational stage that they put emphasis on. The studies mostly focus on STEAM-related fields and language learning as it was also the case for the empirical studies (RQ14).

Summary of the Results and Main Findings

To summarize the main findings and details of the above-mentioned information and studies, it can be said that the main findings of the empirical studies, proposal, and prototype papers as well as review, conceptual, and theoretical papers, all came to the same conclusion that several benefits could be yielded from the integration of augmented reality and gamification into the educational process (RQ15). To address RQ1, the main findings are summarized. Particularly, when used in a student-centered manner, following proper educational approaches and strategies and taking students’ knowledge, interests, unique characteristics, and personality traits into consideration, the use of augmented reality and gamification can bring about positive outcomes, benefits for students, assist educators, improve the educational process, and facilitate the transition toward technology-enhanced learning. More specifically, increased students’ engagement, motivation, active participation, knowledge acquisition, focus, curiosity, interest, enjoyment, and learning outcomes were observed. Positive behavioral and psychological changes as well as opportunities to create personalized learning experiences were also demonstrated. While being immersed in the learning activities, students could experience situations and environments that they would not have the chance to experience otherwise and found it easier to comprehend the learning material since they could acquire hands-on experience in safe virtual environments. Moreover, new opportunities to promote and adopt collaborative learning activities emerged. It is worth noting that despite the vast number of studies explored in this literature review report positive results, there are industry-focused reports and projects that failed to result in positive outcomes.
The use of gamification elements was also viewed as positive in the educational process. Specifically, it made the overall learning experience more enjoyable and intriguing, increased students’ engagement, and kept them more motivated not only to stay focused and participate actively but also to perform better, which in turn led to increased academic performance. The use of virtual rewards was a significant factor, which, in several cases, further improved students’ learning motivation. Students also positively regarded the use of difficulty levels, instant feedback, and the ability to review their performance. Opportunities to create collaborative learning activities and to capitalize on the spirit of friendly competition were also observed.
In addition to students’ viewing the integration of augmented reality and gamification into education as positive, educators also valued it equally. The selection of the appropriate strategies and approaches was deemed as a determining factor to the successful integration. No matter how much augmented reality, gamification, and technology in general advance, educators are the ones who should familiarize themselves with the state-of-the-art technologies, applications, and approaches, and become more comfortable and confident when using them to incorporate them into their teaching process. The role of educators still remains crucial in the educational process and for students’ development, and they are the ones who should strive to offer their students the best learning experiences possible while taking advantage of novel technological tools. With the aim of facilitating the adoption of augmented reality and gamification in the educational process and selecting the most suitable approach, there is a clear need for validated evaluation tools and theories to be developed to assess the applied interventions and measure their effects in a standardized and valid manner [86].
Based on the above-presented results, Spain, Greece, Portugal, the United States, China, Malaysia, and Taiwan were the countries that examined most the integration of augmented reality and gamification into education. Most studies were published in the year 2020. Higher education was the educational stage, which the majority of the studies focused on while the STEAM-related subjects, which are connected with problems that students face daily [273], and language learning, were the subjects investigated most. Assessing the impact of augmented reality and gamification in education and comprehending the participants’ viewpoints were the main aims of most studies. Students were the main target sample with most of the variables analyzed being factors related to them. Ad hoc questionnaires and qualitative research approaches were mostly used. A satisfactory number of qualitative studies were also carried out, which is essential to offer more collective insights into designing better UX [274]. Although the documentation of the development process was not satisfactorily displayed and examples of the developed application were not presented in several cases, most of the studies focused on the use of mobile devices, used Unity and Vuforia as their main development platforms, and android as the operating system of their application. Not using specialized equipment to carry out the experiments showcases the potential of implementing augmented reality experiences easily and affordably in the educational process. Finally, the vast majority of the studies focused solely on students’ cognitive development. As one of the main roles of education is to promote students’ social–emotional development, more emphasis should also be placed on evaluating the impact of augmented reality and gamification on students’ social–emotional development, and how education could contribute toward improving it.

6. Discussion

Along with the technological advances, the teaching and learning methodologies and approaches are also evolving to address the new and upcoming educational needs and requirements [275]. Due to this fact, technology-enhanced learning has become more essential, learning activities are progressing toward being more student-centered, and the educational content is enriched by multimedia elements to be more interactive [276]. Nonetheless, it is of great significance to take cultural, moral, and ethical factors into account when trying to adopt and implement new technologies and approaches in educational context to achieve better outcomes and facilitate the dissemination of technology [31,277].
Both augmented reality and gamification are in line with the engagement theory, which supports technology-enhanced teaching and learning [278]. Additionally, they are in accordance with the instructional theory, which supports that when students cultivate their skills in environments similar to real ones, successful learning can be attained [279,280]. Using augmented reality and gamification can enhance students’ 21st-century skills, which are fundamental to the educational process [15], and help them cultivate their decision-making, social interaction, conflict resolution, and emotional awareness, which are essential in modern society [281]. Hence, they play a vital role in enriching the teaching and learning activities and transforming traditional education into technology-enhanced education while increasing learning outcomes. Both gamification and augmented reality are regarded as essential in developing instructional media, theories, approaches, and designs, which can be applied in several domains, including education [260]. Additionally, they promote and support ubiquitous learning and pervasive learning. Particularly, augmented reality is regarded as a significant innovation in the field of educational technology [282] and as an emerging technology, which can facilitate the creation of inclusive learning experiences [283]. On the other hand, several aspects and elements of gamification are based on educational psychology; therefore, gamification plays a significant role in the development of educational technology and the construction and transformation of education [91,284].
Through the engaging and immersive experiences that are created in safe and hybrid environments, which support guided learning, several educational benefits can be yielded and learning opportunities are brought about [285,286], such as students acquiring knowledge based on hands-on experiences [234] and the potential to apply new pedagogical approaches and methodologies [287]. Hence, experiential learning, which supports concrete experiences, reflective observation, abstract conceptualizations, and active experimentation, and in which learners personally experience and control the learning activity, is promoted [288,289].
Due to the versatility of augmented reality and gamification, both individual and collaborative hybrid learning environments can be created [290]. In particular, by participating in authentic group activities, students demonstrate increased engagement, enthusiasm, and interest in the learning activities, participate more actively, and enhance their critical thinking and problem-solving skills [291,292,293]. As gamification promotes socialization [294], it can create enjoyable social interactions among groups while promoting satisfaction, productivity, collaboration, positive behaviors, and communication [295,296,297]. Thus, gamification elements acting as motivators can positively affect performance in general, even in fields that are not directly related to education, and assist in building core career competencies [298,299], while simultaneously serving as social comparison tools [111,143].
In order to create effective gamification strategies for learning through augmented reality and digital media, thorough planning and analysis, which take learners’ characteristics, learning objectives, as well as the multimedia educational content and activities into consideration must first be conducted [300]. Additionally, to achieve the desired for each case learning outcomes, it is critical to provide students with appropriate and instantaneous feedback [301], to assess their perceived enjoyment and usefulness [302], to set clear goals, instructions, and expectations [303,304], and to design and incorporate activities that stimulate students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations [305]. Based on the motivational theory, as students’ motivation increases, so do their engagement, involvement, and commitment [306]. In addition, high motivation is a significant predictor of deep immersion, which can positively affect students’ academic performance [307], time spent on learning activities [308], higher-order thinking, and meaningful learning [309], as well as behaviors and attitudes toward learning [212]. As games and gamification elements are intrinsically satisfying, they can also positively impact students’ emotions [144,310], which are essential aspects of education as they can either enhance or impede learning and students’ attention and engagement [145,311]. Consequently, augmented reality and gamification support the constructivist learning theory and situated learning theory, which in turn assert that when students actively participate in the learning activities, they are more inclined to learn and achieve better learning outcomes [17,146,312].
Gamified augmented reality applications can impact students’ social, cognitive, and emotional domains [147]. Therefore, many factors should be taken into account when designing and developing such educational applications [313,314]. Due to the multimodal nature of both gamification and augmented reality, particular attention should be paid to designing learning activities that do not overload students’ cognitive capabilities [315,316]. Thus, the diverse gamification elements, which are used to provide a positive and interactive learning climate [93], and engage students more actively and for longer time periods [317], should focus on addressing specific educational contexts and activities [318].

7. Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the need for technology-enhanced learning more evident. Students’ educational requirements and expectations have drastically changed as they grow up in environments where technology is an essential part of everyday life. Consequently, students are seeking for more meaningful learning experiences through educational means and approaches, which are more engaging, motivating, and immersive. The application of augmented reality and gamification in education is gaining ground.
The aim of this study was to scrutinize the existing literature concerning the use of gamification and augmented reality in the educational process. Therefore, a systematic literature review was carried out. According to the results, their use in teaching and learning activities can improve the overall educational process, while also assisting educators and yielding numerous merits for students. Additionally, their integration into education facilitates the transition toward technology-enhanced learning. Nonetheless, in order for all these to be realized, their integration should follow proper educational strategies and approaches, have students at its core, and take students’ knowledge, interests, unique characteristics, and personality traits into account.
In particular, the use of augmented reality applications enriched with gamification elements resulted in increasing students’ engagement, motivation, active participation, knowledge acquisition, focus, curiosity, interest, enjoyment, academic performance, and learning outcomes. Furthermore, positive behavioral, attitudinal, and psychological changes were demonstrated. The overall experience and impact of their combination was positively viewed and assessed by both students and educators. Gamification elements had a significant impact on teaching and learning activities. Virtual rewards, in particular, were a vital factor in improving learning motivation and students’ engagement. Their ability to create immersive environments, which promote collaborative and personalized learning experiences, was highly regarded. Finally, based on the analysis, the use of gamification elements and augmented reality technology contributed significantly to promoting and enhancing students’ cognitive and social–emotional development.
The merits acquired through combining gamification with augmented reality were of great significance. Nonetheless, in order for them to be more widely accepted and adopted in education, general innovation and improvement through educational technology should be encouraged, standardized validation and evaluation tools need to be developed, more effective learning strategies and approaches need to be further explored, and cross-cultural studies that take into consideration the participants’ unique characteristics should be carried out. Finally, it is of great importance not only to focus on improving students’ academic performance but also to explore and enhance their social–emotional development and 21st-century skills cultivation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, G.L.; article identification, screening, retrieval, selection, and analysis, G.L.; formal analysis and investigation, G.L.; writing—original draft preparation, G.L.; tables and figures generation, G.L.; review and editing, G.L., E.K., K.D. and G.E.; supervision, E.K., K.D. and G.E.; funding acquisition, G.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research work was supported by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) under the 3rd Call for HFRI PhD Fellowships (Fellowship Number: 6454).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Becker, S.A.; Cummins, M.; Davis, A.; Freeman, A.; Hall, C.G.; Ananthanarayanan, V. NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition; The New Media Consortium: Austin, TX, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  2. Daniel, S.J. Education and the COVID-19 Pandemic. PROSPECTS 2020, 49, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Pokhrel, S.; Chhetri, R.A. Literature Review on Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Teaching and Learning. High. Educ. Future 2021, 8, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Prensky, M. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: Do They Really Think Differently? Horizon 2001, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chang, C.Y.; Lai, C.L.; Hwang, G.J. Trends and Research Issues of Mobile Learning Studies in Nursing Education: A Review of Academic Publications from 1971 to 2016. Comput. Educ. 2018, 116, 28–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Admiraal, W.; Huizenga, J.; Akkerman, S.; Dam, G.T. The Concept of Flow in Collaborative Game-Based Learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1185–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Anastasiadis, T.; Lampropoulos, G.; Siakas, K. Digital Game-Based Learning and Serious Games in Education. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Res. Eng. 2018, 4, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Crisol-Moya, E.; Romero-López, M.A.; Caurcel-Cara, M.J. Active Methodologies in Higher Education: Perception and Opinion as Evaluated by Professors and Their Students in the Teaching-Learning Process. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zeidler, D.L.; Sadler, T.D.; Simmons, M.L.; Howes, E.V. Beyond STS: A Research-Based Framework for Socioscientific Issues Education. Sci. Educ. 2005, 89, 357–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Barab, S.; Dede, C. Games and Immersive Participatory Simulations for Science Education: An Emerging Type of Curricula. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2007, 16, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Billingsley, G.; Smith, S.; Smith, S.; Meritt, J. A Systematic Literature Review of Using Immersive Virtual Reality Technology in Teacher Education. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 2019, 30, 65–90. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zawacki-Richter, O.; Latchem, C. Exploring Four Decades of Research in Computers & Education. Comput. Educ. 2018, 122, 136–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hughes, J.; Thomas, R.; Scharber, C. Assessing Technology Integration: The RAT–Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation-Framework. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 19 March 2006; Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE): Waynesville, NC, USA, 2006; pp. 1616–1620. [Google Scholar]
  14. Robinson, R.; Molenda, M.; Rezabek, L. Facilitating Learning. In Educational Technology; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 27–60. [Google Scholar]
  15. National Research Council. Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Akçayır, M.; Akçayır, G. Advantages and Challenges Associated with Augmented Reality for Education: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 2017, 20, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wu, H.-K.; Lee, S.W.-Y.; Chang, H.-Y.; Liang, J.-C. Current Status, Opportunities and Challenges of Augmented Reality in Education. Comput. Educ. 2013, 62, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nah, F.F.-H.; Zeng, Q.; Telaprolu, V.R.; Ayyappa, A.P.; Eschenbrenner, B. Gamification of Education: A Review of Literature. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Majuri, J.; Koivisto, J.; Hamari, J. Gamification of Education and Learning: A Review of Empirical Literature. In Proceedings of the 2nd International GamiFIN Conference, Pori, Finland, 21–23 May 2018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Burbules, N.C.; Callister, T.A. Watch IT: The Risks and Promises of Information Technologies for Education; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ratten, V.; Jones, P. Covid-19 and Entrepreneurship Education: Implications for Advancing Research and Practice. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Caudell, T.P.; Mizell, D.W. Augmented Reality: An Application of Heads-up Display Technology to Manual Manufacturing Processes. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA, 7–10 January 1992; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1992; Volume 2, pp. 659–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Azuma, R.T. A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1997, 6, 355–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Johnson, L.; Levine, A.; Smith, R.; Stone, S. The 2010 Horizon Report; New Media Consortium: Austin, TX, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  25. Carmigniani, J.; Furht, B.; Anisetti, M.; Ceravolo, P.; Damiani, E.; Ivkovic, M. Augmented Reality Technologies, Systems and Applications. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2011, 51, 341–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lee, K. Augmented Reality in Education and Training. TechTrends 2012, 56, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, P.; Liu, X.; Cheng, W.; Huang, R. A Review of Using Augmented Reality in Education from 2011 to 2016. Innov. Smart Learn. 2017, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lampropoulos, G.; Keramopoulos, E.; Diamantaras, K. Enhancing the Functionality of Augmented Reality Using Deep Learning, Semantic Web and Knowledge Graphs: A Review. Vis. Inform. 2020, 4, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lampropoulos, G.; Keramopoulos, E.; Diamantaras, K. Semantically Enriched Augmented Reality Applications: A Proposed System Architecture and a Case Study. Int. J. Recent Contrib. Eng. Sci. IT Ijes 2022, 10, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kesim, M.; Ozarslan, Y. Augmented Reality in Education: Current Technologies and the Potential for Education. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 47, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Hincapie, M.; Diaz, C.; Valencia, A.; Contero, M.; Güemes-Castorena, D. Educational Applications of Augmented Reality: A Bibliometric Study. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2021, 93, 107289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Goff, E.E.; Mulvey, K.L.; Irvin, M.J.; Hartstone-Rose, A. Applications of Augmented Reality in Informal Science Learning Sites: A Review. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2018, 27, 433–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bacca-Acosta, J.L.; Baldiris, S.; Fabregat, R.; Graf, S.; Kinshuk. Augmented Reality Trends in Education: A Systematic Review of Research and Applications. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2014, 17, 133–149. [Google Scholar]
  34. Karakus, M.; Ersozlu, A.; Clark, A.C. Augmented Reality Research in Education: A Bibliometric Study. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2019, 15, em1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sirakaya, M.; Alsancak-Sırakaya, D. Trends in Educational Augmented Reality Studies: A Systematic Review. Malays. Online J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 6, 60–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. López-Belmonte, J.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J.; López Núñez, J.A.; Pozo Sánchez, S. Analysis of the Productive, Structural, and Dynamic Development of Augmented Reality in Higher Education Research on the Web of Science. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. López-Belmonte, J.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J.; López-Núñez, J.-A.; Hinojo-Lucena, F.-J. Augmented Reality in Education. A Scientific Mapping in Web of Science. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Avila-Garzon, C.; Bacca-Acosta, J.; Kinshuk; Duarte, J.; Betancourt, J. Augmented Reality in Education: An Overview of Twenty-Five Years of Research. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2021, 13, ep302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Alvarez-Marin, A.; Velazquez-Iturbide, J.A. Augmented Reality and Engineering Education: A Systematic Review. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2021, 14, 817–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mystakidis, S.; Christopoulos, A.; Pellas, N. A Systematic Mapping Review of Augmented Reality Applications to Support STEM Learning in Higher Education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 27, 1883–1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Billinghurst, M.; Kato, H.; Poupyrev, I. The Magicbook-Moving Seamlessly Between Reality and Virtuality. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2001, 21, 6–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Martín-Gutiérrez, J.; Fabiani, P.; Benesova, W.; Meneses, M.D.; Mora, C.E. Augmented Reality to Promote Collaborative and Autonomous Learning in Higher Education. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 51, 752–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lin, C.-Y.; Chai, H.-C.; Wang, J.; Chen, C.-J.; Liu, Y.-H.; Chen, C.-W.; Lin, C.-W.; Huang, Y.-M. Augmented Reality in Educational Activities for Children with Disabilities. Displays 2016, 42, 51–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fidan, M.; Tuncel, M. Integrating Augmented Reality into Problem Based Learning: The Effects on Learning Achievement and Attitude in Physics Education. Comput. Educ. 2019, 142, 103635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chen, C.; Wang, C.-H. Employing Augmented-Reality-Embedded Instruction to Disperse the Imparities of Individual Differences in Earth Science Learning. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2015, 24, 835–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gavish, N.; Gutiérrez, T.; Webel, S.; Rodríguez, J.; Peveri, M.; Bockholt, U.; Tecchia, F. Evaluating Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality Training for Industrial Maintenance and Assembly Tasks. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2015, 23, 778–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Radu, I. Why Should My Students Use AR? A Comparative Review of the Educational Impacts of Augmented-Reality. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR), Atlanta, GA, USA, 5–8 November 2012; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 313–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Di Serio, Á.; Ibáñez, M.B.; Kloos, C.D. Impact of an Augmented Reality System on Students’ Motivation for a Visual Art Course. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 586–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Chiang, T.H.; Yang, S.J.; Hwang, G.-J. An Augmented Reality-Based Mobile Learning System to Improve Students’ Learning Achievements and Motivations in Natural Science Inquiry Activities. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2014, 17, 352–365. [Google Scholar]
  50. Coimbra, M.T.; Cardoso, T.; Mateus, A. Augmented Reality: An Enhancer for Higher Education Students in Math’s Learning? Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 67, 332–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Ozdemir, M.; Sahin, C.; Arcagok, S.; Demir, M.K. The Effect of Augmented Reality Applications in the Learning Process: A Meta-Analysis Study. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 2018, 18, 165–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Khan, T.; Johnston, K.; Ophoff, J. The Impact of an Augmented Reality Application on Learning Motivation of Students. Adv. Hum. -Comput. Interact. 2019, 2019, 7208494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Ibáñez, M.B.; Portillo, A.U.; Cabada, R.Z.; Barrón, M.L. Impact of Augmented Reality Technology on Academic Achievement and Motivation of Students from Public and Private Mexican Schools. A Case Study in a Middle-School Geometry Course. Comput. Educ. 2020, 145, 103734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sahin, D.; Yilmaz, R.M. The Effect of Augmented Reality Technology on Middle School Students’ Achievements and Attitudes Towards Science Education. Comput. Educ. 2020, 144, 103710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sotiriou, S.; Bogner, F.X. Visualizing the Invisible: Augmented Reality as an Innovative Science Education Scheme. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2008, 1, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yuen, S.C.-Y.; Yaoyuneyong, G.; Johnson, E. Augmented Reality: An Overview and Five Directions for AR in Education. J. Educ. Technol. Dev. Exch. 2011, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cheng, K.-H.; Tsai, C.-C. Affordances of Augmented Reality in Science Learning: Suggestions for Future Research. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2013, 22, 449–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Cabero-Almenara, J.; Barroso-Osuna, J. The Educational Possibilities of Augmented Reality. J. New Approaches Educ. Res. 2016, 5, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Alkhattabi, M. Augmented Reality as e-Learning Tool in Primary Schools’ Education: Barriers to Teachers’ Adoption. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. Ijet 2017, 12, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Iatsyshyn, A.; Kovach, V.; Romanenko, Y.; Deinega, I.; Iatsyshyn, A.; Popov, O.; Kutsan, Y.; Artemchuk, V.; Burov, O.; Lytvynova, S. Application of Augmented Reality Technologies for Preparation of Specialists of New Technological Era. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Augmented Reality in Education, Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine, 22 March 2019; pp. 181–200. [Google Scholar]
  61. Garzón, J.; Kinshuk; Baldiris, S.; Gutiérrez, J.; Pavón, J. How Do Pedagogical Approaches Affect the Impact of Augmented Reality on Education? A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 31, 100334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bower, M.; Howe, C.; McCredie, N.; Robinson, A.; Grover, D. Augmented Reality in Education–Cases, Places and Potentials. Educ. Media Int. 2014, 51, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Garzón, J.; Pavón, J.; Baldiris, S. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Augmented Reality in Educational Settings. Virtual Real. 2019, 23, 447–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cai, S.; Wang, X.; Chiang, F.-K. A Case Study of Augmented Reality Simulation System Application in a Chemistry Course. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 37, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Ibáñez, M.-B.; Delgado-Kloos, C. Augmented Reality for STEM Learning: A Systematic Review. Comput. Educ. 2018, 123, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sırakaya, M.; Alsancak-Sırakaya, D. Augmented Reality in STEM Education: A Systematic Review. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Osadchyi, V.; Valko, N.; Kuzmich, L. Using Augmented Reality Technologies for STEM Education Organization. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 1840, p. 012027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gargrish, S.; Mantri, A.; Kaur, D.P. Augmented Reality-Based Learning Environment to Enhance Teaching-Learning Experience in Geometry Education. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 172, 1039–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Irwansyah, F.S.; Yusuf, Y.; Farida, I.; Ramdhani, M.A. Augmented Reality (AR) Technology on the Android Operating System in Chemistry Learning. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Ltd: Bristol, UK, 2018; Volume 288, p. 012068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, J.; Sung, Y.-T.; Hou, H.-T.; Chang, K.-E. The Development and Evaluation of an Augmented Reality-Based Armillary Sphere for Astronomical Observation Instruction. Comput. Educ. 2014, 73, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Carlson, K.J.; Gagnon, D.J. Augmented Reality Integrated Simulation Education in Health Care. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2016, 12, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Eckert, M.; Volmerg, J.S.; Friedrich, C.M. Augmented Reality in Medicine: Systematic and Bibliographic Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019, 7, e10967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tang, K.S.; Cheng, D.L.; Mi, E.; Greenberg, P.B. Augmented Reality in Medical Education: A Systematic Review. Can. Med. Educ. J. 2020, 11, e81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ma, M.; Fallavollita, P.; Seelbach, I.; Von Der Heide, A.M.; Euler, E.; Waschke, J.; Navab, N. Personalized Augmented Reality for Anatomy Education. Clin. Anat. 2016, 29, 446–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Chang, K.-E.; Zhang, J.; Huang, Y.-S.; Liu, T.-C.; Sung, Y.-T. Applying Augmented Reality in Physical Education on Motor Skills Learning. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 28, 685–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Soltani, P.; Morice, A.H. Augmented Reality Tools for Sports Education and Training. Comput. Educ. 2020, 155, 103923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Turan, Z.; Meral, E.; Sahin, I.F. The Impact of Mobile Augmented Reality in Geography Education: Achievements, Cognitive Loads and Views of University Students. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 2018, 42, 427–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Serafin, S.; Adjorlu, A.; Nilsson, N.; Thomsen, L.; Nordahl, R. Considerations on the Use of Virtual and Augmented Reality Technologies in Music Education. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE virtual reality workshop on k-12 embodied learning through virtual & augmented reality (KELVAR), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 19 March 2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sermet, Y.; Demir, I. Virtual and Augmented Reality Applications for Environmental Science Education and Training. In New Perspectives on Virtual and Augmented Reality; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; pp. 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Liu, P.-H.E.; Tsai, M.-K. Using Augmented-Reality-Based Mobile Learning Material in EFL English Composition: An Exploratory Case Study. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2013, 44, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Perry, B. Gamifying French Language Learning: A Case Study Examining a Quest-Based, Augmented Reality Mobile Learning-Tool. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 174, 2308–2315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Challenor, J.; Ma, M. A Review of Augmented Reality Applications for History Education and Heritage Visualisation. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2019, 3, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Ibañez-Etxeberria, A.; Gómez-Carrasco, C.J.; Fontal, O.; García-Ceballos, S. Virtual Environments and Augmented Reality Applied to Heritage Education. An Evaluative Study. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Radosavljevic, S.; Radosavljevic, V.; Grgurovic, B. The Potential of Implementing Augmented Reality into Vocational Higher Education Through Mobile Learning. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2018, 28, 404–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Landers, R.N. Developing a Theory of Gamified Learning. Simul. Gaming 2014, 45, 752–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Nacke, L.E.; Deterding, S. The Maturing of Gamification Research. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 71, 450–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference on envisioning future media environments—MindTrek’ 11, Tampere, Finland, 28–30 September 2011; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Deterding, S.; Sicart, M.; Nacke, L.; O’Hara, K.; Dixon, D. Gamification. Using Game-Design Elements in Non-Gaming Contexts. In Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems—CHI EA ’11, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Deterding, S. Gamification: Design for Motivation. Interactions 2012, 19, 14–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Seaborn, K.; Fels, D.I. Gamification in Theory and Action: A Survey. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2015, 74, 14–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kapp, K.M. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  92. Palomino, P.T.; Toda, A.M.; Oliveira, W.; Cristea, A.I.; Isotani, S. Narrative for Gamification in Education: Why Should You Care? In 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT); IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hamari, J.; Koivisto, J.; Sarsa, H. Does Gamification Work?—A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. In Proceedings of the 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 6–9 January 2014; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kim, S.; Song, K.; Lockee, B.; Burton, J. What Is Gamification in Learning and Education? In Gamification in Learning and Education; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Sitzmann, T. A Meta-analytic Examination of the Instructional Effectiveness of Computer-based Simulation Games. Pers. Psychol. 2011, 64, 489–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Hanus, M.D.; Fox, J. Assessing the Effects of Gamification in the Classroom: A Longitudinal Study on Intrinsic Motivation, Social Comparison, Satisfaction, Effort, and Academic Performance. Comput. Educ. 2015, 80, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Manzano-León, A.; Camacho-Lazarraga, P.; Guerrero, M.A.; Guerrero-Puerta, L.; Aguilar-Parra, J.M.; Trigueros, R.; Alias, A. Between Level up and Game over: A Systematic Literature Review of Gamification in Education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Subhash, S.; Cudney, E.A. Gamified Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 87, 192–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. De Sousa Borges, S.; Durelli, V.H.S.; Reis, H.M.; Isotani, S. A Systematic Mapping on Gamification Applied to Education. In Proceedings of the 29th annual ACM symposium on applied computing, Gyeongju, Korea, 24–28 March 2014; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Dicheva, D.; Dichev, C.; Agre, G.; Angelova, G. Gamification in Education: A Systematic Mapping Study. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2015, 18, 75–88. [Google Scholar]
  101. Martí-Parreño, J.; Méndez-Ibáñez, E.; Alonso-Arroyo, A. The Use of Gamification in Education: A Bibliometric and Text Mining Analysis. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2016, 32, 663–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Swacha, J. State of Research on Gamification in Education: A Bibliometric Survey. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Sailer, M.; Homner, L. The Gamification of Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2019, 32, 77–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Sanchez, É.; Ney, M.; Labat, J.M. Jeux sérieux Et pédagogie Universitaire: De La Conception à l’évaluation Des Apprentissages. Rev. Int. Des Technol. En Pédagogie Univ. 2011, 8, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. O’Donovan, S. Gamification of the Games Course; University of Cape Town: Cape Town, South Africa, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  106. López, P.; Rodrigues-Silva, J.; Alsina, Á. Brazilian and Spanish Mathematics Teachers’ Predispositions Towards Gamification in STEAM Education. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ortiz, M.; Chiluiza, K.; Valcke, M. Gamification in Higher Education and Stem: A Systematic Review of Literature. In Proceedings of the EDULEARN Proceedings, Barcelona, Spain, 4–6 July 2016; IATED: Valencia, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Dehghanzadeh, H.; Fardanesh, H.; Hatami, J.; Talaee, E.; Noroozi, O. Using Gamification to Support Learning English as a Second Language: A Systematic Review. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2019, 34, 934–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Dehganzadeh, H.; Dehganzadeh, H. Investigating Effects of Digital Gamification-Based Language Learning: A Systematic Review. J. Engl. Lang. Teach. Learn. 2020, 12, 53–93. [Google Scholar]
  110. Sandrone, S.; Carlson, C. Gamification and Game-Based Education in Neurology and Neuroscience: Applications, Challenges, and Opportunities. Brain Disord. 2021, 1, 100008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Nevin, C.R.; Westfall, A.O.; Rodriguez, J.M.; Dempsey, D.M.; Cherrington, A.; Roy, B.; Patel, M.; Willig, J.H. Gamification as a Tool for Enhancing Graduate Medical Education. Postgrad. Med. J. 2014, 90, 685–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. McCoy, L.; Lewis, J.H.; Dalton, D. Gamification and Multimedia for Medical Education: A Landscape Review. J. Osteopath. Med. 2016, 116, 22–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Ang, E.T.; Chan, J.M.; Gopal, V.; Shia, N.L. Gamifying Anatomy Education. Clin. Anat. 2018, 31, 997–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Fernandez-Rio, J.; de las Heras, E.; González, T.; Trillo, V.; Palomares, J. Gamification and Physical Education. Viability and Preliminary Views from Students and Teachers. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2020, 25, 509–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Ferriz-Valero, A.; Østerlie, O.; Martínez, S.G.; García-Jaén, M. Gamification in Physical Education: Evaluation of Impact on Motivation and Academic Performance Within Higher Education. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Kamalodeen, V.J.; Ramsawak-Jodha, N.; Figaro-Henry, S.; Jaggernauth, S.J.; Dedovets, Z. Designing Gamification for Geometry in Elementary Schools: Insights from the Designers. Smart Learn. Environ. 2021, 8, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Chans, G.M.; Castro, M.P. Gamification as a Strategy to Increase Motivation and Engagement in Higher Education Chemistry Students. Computers 2021, 10, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Mellor, K.E.; Coish, P.; Brooks, B.W.; Gallagher, E.P.; Mills, M.; Kavanagh, T.J.; Simcox, N.; Lasker, G.A.; Botta, D.; Voutchkova-Kostal, A.; et al. The Safer Chemical Design Game. Gamification of Green Chemistry and Safer Chemical Design Concepts for High School and Undergraduate Students. Green Chem. Lett. Rev. 2018, 11, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Jagušt, T.; Botički, I.; So, H.-J. Examining Competitive, Collaborative and Adaptive Gamification in Young Learners’ Math Learning. Comput. Amp Educ. 2018, 125, 444–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lo, C.K.; Hew, K.F. A Comparison of Flipped Learning with Gamification, Traditional Learning, and Online Independent Study: The Effects on Students’ Mathematics Achievement and Cognitive Engagement. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2018, 28, 464–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Barringer, D.F.; Plummer, J.D.; Kregenow, J.; Palma, C. Gamified Approach to Teaching Introductory Astronomy Online. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 2018, 14, 010140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Mahat, H.; Hashim, M.; Norkhaidi, S.B.; Nayan, N.; Saleh, Y.; Hamid, N.; Hidayah, N.; Faudzi, N.A.M. The Readiness of Geography Teacher Trainees in Gamification Approach. Rev. Int. Geogr. Educ. Online 2021, 11, 720–734. [Google Scholar]
  124. Ouariachi, T.; Li, C.-Y.; Elving, W.J.L. Gamification Approaches for Education and Engagement on Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Searching for Best Practices. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Jung, C. Gamification for Environment Education Based on the Extended Cooperation. J. Korea Game Soc. 2017, 17, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Rivas, E.S.; Palmero, J.R.; Rodríguez, J.S. Gamification of Assessments in the Natural Sciences Subject in Primary Education. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2019, 19, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Moseikina, M.; Toktamysov, S.; Danshina, S. Modern Technologies and Gamification in Historical Education. Simul. Gaming 2022, 53, 104687812210759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Bonacini, E.; Giaccone, S.C. Gamification and Cultural Institutions in Cultural Heritage Promotion: A Successful Example from Italy. Cult. Trends 2021, 31, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Gomes, C.; Figueiredo, M.; Bidarra, J. Gamification in Teaching Music: Case Study. EduRe’14 - International Virtual Conference on Education, Social and Technological Sciences; Valencia Polytechnic University: Valencia, Spain, 2014; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  130. Jayalath, J.; Esichaikul, V. Gamification to Enhance Motivation and Engagement in Blended eLearning for Technical and Vocational Education and Training. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2020, 27, 91–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Liberati, A. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 65–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Higgins, J.P.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Webster, J.; Watson, R.T. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Q. 2002, 26, xiii–xxiii. [Google Scholar]
  135. Aksnes, D.W.; Sivertsen, G. A Criteria-Based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science. J. Data Inf. Sci. 2019, 4, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research; Sage publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  137. Molero, D.; Schez-Sobrino, S.; Vallejo, D.; Glez-Morcillo, C.; Albusac, J. A Novel Approach to Learning Music and Piano Based on Mixed Reality and Gamification. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2020, 80, 165–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Sobandi, B.; Wibawa, S.C.; Triyanto, T.; Syakir, S.; Pandanwangi, A.; Suryadi, S.; Nursalim, A.; Santosa, H. Batik AR Ver.1.0: Augmented Reality Application as Gamification of Batik Design Using Waterfall Method. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1987, 012021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Sudarmilah, E.; Irsyadi, F.Y.A.; Purworini, D.; Fatmawati, A.; Haryanti, Y.; Santoso, B.; Bakhtiar, D.N.; Ustia, N. Improving Knowledge about Indonesian Culture with Augmented Reality Gamification. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 830, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Ramli, R.Z.; Marobi, N.A.U.; Ashaari, N.S. Microorganisms: Integrating Augmented Reality and Gamification in a Learning Tool. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2021, 12, 354–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Carlos-Chullo, J.D.; Vilca-Quispe, M.; Castro-Gutierrez, E. Voluminis: Mobile Application for Learning Mathematics in Geometry with Augmented Reality and Gamification. In Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Mota, J.S.; Canedo, E.D.; Torres, K.S.; Leao, H.A.T. AssociAR: Gamified Process for the Teaching of Children with Autism Through the Association of Images and Words. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE), Uppsala, Sweden, 21–24 October 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Zsigmond, I.; Buhai, A. Augmented Reality in Medical Education, an Empirical Study. In Computational Science and Its Applications—ICCSA 2021; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 631–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. López-Faican, L.; Jaen, J. EmoFindAR: Evaluation of a Mobile Multiplayer Augmented Reality Game for Primary School Children. Comput. Educ. 2020, 149, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Lin, H.-C.K.; Lin, Y.-H.; Wang, T.-H.; Su, L.-K.; Huang, Y.-M. Effects of Incorporating AR into a Board Game on Learning Outcomes and Emotions in Health Education. Electronics 2020, 9, 1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Aoyama, R.; Tse, H. Using Augmented Reality and Gamification to Make History Field Trips More Engaging for University Students. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language, Education, Humanities and Innovation 2017, the Interdisciplinary Circle of Science, Arts and Innovation, Singapore, 22–23 April 2017; pp. 142–151. [Google Scholar]
  147. Lee, S.-M.; Park, M. Reconceptualization of the Context in Language Learning with a Location-Based AR App. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2019, 33, 936–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Lin, H.-C.K.; Lin, Y.-H.; Wang, T.-H.; Su, L.-K.; Huang, Y.-M. Effects of Incorporating Augmented Reality into a Board Game for High School Students’ Learning Motivation and Acceptance in Health Education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Silva, F.; Ferreira, R.; Castro, A.; Pinto, P.; Ramos, J. Experiments on Gamification with Virtual and Augmented Reality for Practical Application Learning. In Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning, 11th International Conference; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Ying, O.L.; Hipiny, I.; Ujir, H.; Juan, S.F.S. Game-Based Learning Using Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2021 8th international conference on computer and communication engineering (ICCCE), Piscataway, NJ, USA, June, 22–23 June 2021; pp. 344–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Perry, B. Gamified Mobile Collaborative Location-Based Language Learning. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Korosidou, E.; Bratitsis, T. Gamifying Early Foreign Language Learning. In Internet of Things, Infrastructures and Mobile Applications; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 726–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Wommer, F.G.B.; Sepel, L.M.N.; Loreto, E.L.S. Insects GO: A Gaming Activity for Entomology Teaching in Middle School. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2021, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Rebollo, C.; Remolar, I.; Rossano, V.; Lanzilotti, R. Multimedia Augmented Reality Game for Learning Math. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2021, 81, 14851–14868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Yonemoto, K. Reinforcing International Students’ Language Skills for Disaster Preparedness: A Case Study of Gamification That Utilizes Augmented Reality Technology. In Digital Games and Language Learning; Bloomsbury Academic: London, UK, 2021; pp. 163–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Lu, A.; Wong, C.S.K.; Cheung, R.Y.H.; Im, T.S.W. Supporting Flipped and Gamified Learning with Augmented Reality in Higher Education. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Logothetis, I.; Papadourakis, G.; Katsaris, I.; Katsios, K.; Vidakis, N. Transforming Classic Learning Games with the Use of AR: The Case of the Word Hangman Game. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies: Games and Virtual Environments for Learning; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Stefanidi, E.; Korozi, M.; Leonidis, A.; Arampatzis, D.; Antona, M.; Papagiannakis, G. When Children Program Intelligent Environments: Lessons Learned from a Serious AR Game. In Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children, London, UK, 12–15 June 2021; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Ortiz, G.; Garcia-de-Prado, A.; Boubeta-Puig, J.; Cwierz, H. A Mobile Application as Didactic Material to Improve Learning on Distributed Architectures. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 16–18 December 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Somakeerthi, D.C.S.; Silva, G.W.I.U.D.; Silva, L.D.T.D.; Chandrasiri, S.; Joseph, J.K. Amazon Biology: An Augmented Reality-Based e-Book for Biology. In Proceedings of the 2020 2nd International Conference on Advancements in Computing (ICAC), Colombo, Sri Lanka, 10–11 December 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 410–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Wang, D.; Khambari, M.N.M. An AR-Based Gamified English Course in Vocational College Through Interest-Driven Approach. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 8, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Thamrongrat, P.; Law, E.L.-C. Analysis of the Motivational Effect of Gamified Augmented Reality Apps for Learning Geometry. In Proceedings of the 32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Sydney, Australia, 2–4 December 2020; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Plecher, D.A.; Eichhorn, C.; Seyam, K.M.; Klinker, G. ARsinoë—Learning Egyptian Hieroglyphs with Augmented Reality and Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), Piscataway, NJ, USA, 9–13 November 2020; pp. 326–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Chagas, J.; Santiago, P.; Conci, A. BN Anatomy an Interactive Augmented Reality System for Learning Bone Anatomy. In Proceedings of the GET 2020: 13th International Conference on Game and Entertainment Technologies, Zagreb, Croatia, 23–25 July 2020; pp. 206–210. [Google Scholar]
  165. Alqahtani, H.; Kavakli-Thorne, M. Design and Evaluation of an Augmented Reality Game for Cybersecurity Awareness (CybAR). Information 2020, 11, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  166. Dan, W.; Khambari, M.N.M.; Wong, S.L.; Razali, A.B.M. Evaluation of a Gamified Augmented Reality Mobile App to Support English Language Learning Among Non-Native Speakers. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on computers in education, Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education, Virtual, 23–27 November 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  167. Wolf, M.; Wehking, F.; Söbke, H.; Londong, J. Location-Based Apps in Environmental Engineering Higher Education. In Proceedings of the DELbA 2020: Workshop on Designing and Facilitating Educational Location-Based Applications, Online, 15 September 2020; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  168. Stefanidi, E.; Arampatzis, D.; Leonidis, A.; Korozi, M.; Antona, M.; Papagiannakis, G. MagiPlay: An Augmented Reality Serious Game Allowing Children to Program Intelligent Environments. In Transactions on Computational Science XXXVII; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 144–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Rodríguez, M.; González, E.J.; González-Miquel, M.; Díaz, I. Motivational Active Learning in Chemical Engineering. In Computer Aided Chemical Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 2017–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Schez-Sobrino, S.; Vallejo, D.; Glez-Morcillo, C.; Redondo, M.Á.; Castro-Schez, J.J. RoboTIC: A Serious Game Based on Augmented Reality for Learning Programming. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2020, 79, 34079–34099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Durão, N.; Moreira, F.; da Silva Costa Ferreira, M.J.; Pereira, C.S.; Annamalai, N. The State of Mobile Learning Supported by Gamification and Augmented Reality in Higher Education Institutions Across Three Continents. Rev. EDaPECI 2020, 20, 130–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Durão, N.; Moreira, F.; Ferreira, M.J.; Pereira, C.S.; Annamalai, N. A Comparative Study about Mobile Learning with Gamification and Augmented Reality in High Education Institutions Across South Europe, South America, and Asia Countries. In Proceedings of the 2019 14th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Coimbra, Portugal, 15 June 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Kang, Y.-S.; Chang, Y.-J. Using an Augmented Reality Game to Teach Three Junior High School Students with Intellectual Disabilities to Improve ATM Use. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. 2019, 33, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Patricio, J.M.; Costa, M.C.; Manso, A. A Gamified Mobile Augmented Reality System for the Teaching of Astronomical Concepts. In Proceedings of the 2019 14th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Coimbra, Portugal, 15 June 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Gardeli, A.; Vosinakis, S. ARQuest: A Tangible Augmented Reality Approach to Developing Computational Thinking Skills. In Proceedings of the 2019 11th International Conference on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications (VS-Games), Vienna, Austria, 4–6 September 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Lin, S.Y.; Chen, M.P.; Wang, L.C.; Kao, Y.T.; Zou, D.; Xie, H. Enhancing Low Achievers’ EFL Learning with Interactive Digital Technologies. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2019, Kenting, Taiwan, 2–6 December 2019; Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. 2019; pp. 617–623. [Google Scholar]
  177. Choolarb, T.; Premsmith, J.; Wannapiroon, P. Imagineering Gamification Using Interactive Augmented Reality to Develop Digital Literacy Skills. In Proceedings of the 2019 the 3rd International Conference on Digital Technology in Education, Tsuru, Japan, 25–27 October 2019; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Noor, N.M.; Ismail, M.; Yussof, R.L.; Yusoff, F.H. Measuring Tajweed Augmented Reality-Based Gamification Learning Model (TARGaLM) Implementation for Children in Tajweed Learning. Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 2019, 27, 1821–1840. [Google Scholar]
  179. Molloy, W.; Huang, E.; Wunsche, B.C. Mixed Reality Piano Tutor: A Gamified Piano Practice Environment. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Electronics, Information, and Communication (ICEIC), Auckland, New Zealand, 22–25 January 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Mei, B.; Yang, S. Nurturing Environmental Education at the Tertiary Education Level in China: Can Mobile Augmented Reality and Gamification Help? Sustainability 2019, 11, 4292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  181. Chujitarom, W.; Piriyasurawong, P. The Effect of the STEAM-GAAR Field Learning Model to Enhance Grit. TEM J 2019, 8, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Su, C.-H. The effect of users’ behavioral intention on gamification augmented reality in STEM (GAR-STEM) education. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2019, 18, 450–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Wei, X.; Yang, G.; Weng, D. The Influence of Mobile Augmented Reality-Based Sandbox Games on Chinese Characters Learning. In Image and Graphics Technologies and Applications; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 436–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Bell, J.; Cheng, C.; Klautke, H.; Cain, W.; Freer, D.; Hinds, T. A Study of Augmented Reality for the Development of Spatial Reasoning Ability. In Proceedings of the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 24–27 June 2018; ASEE Conferences. 2018; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Castañeda, M.A.; Guerra, A.M.; Ferro, R. Analysis on the Gamification and Implementation of Leap Motion Controller in the i.e.d. Técnico Industrial de Tocancipá. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 2018, 15, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Ati, M.; Kabir, K.; Abdullahi, H.; Ahmed, M. Augmented Reality Enhanced Computer Aided Learning for Young Children. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Symposium on Computer Applications & Industrial Electronics (ISCAIE), Penang, Malaysia, 28–29 April 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Costa, M.C.; Patricio, J.M.; Carranca, J.A.; Farropo, B. Augmented Reality Technologies to Promote STEM Learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 13th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Cáceres, Spain, 13–16 June 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Francese, R.; Risi, M.; Siani, R.; Tortora, G. Augmented Treasure Hunting Generator for Edutainment. In Proceedings of the 2018 22nd International Conference Information Visualisation (IV), Fisciano, Italy, 10–13 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 524–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Khambari, M.N.M. Blending Gamification and Augmented Reality in XploreRAFE Module: Intriguing Excitement and Promoting Collaborative Learning Among Learners in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computers in Education, Manila, Philippines, 26–30 November 2018; Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. 2018; pp. 625–630. [Google Scholar]
  190. Janes, C.; Andrews, T.; Adbel-Maguid, M. Designing an Augmented Reality Smartphone Application for the Enhancement of Asthma Care Education. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Plecher, D.A.; Eichhorn, C.; Kindl, J.; Kreisig, S.; Wintergerst, M.; Klinker, G. Dragon Tale—A Serious Game for Learning Japanese Kanji. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts, Melbourne, Australia, 28–31 October 2018; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 577–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Abdullah, F.; Kassim, M.H.; Sanusi, A.N.Z.; Tidjani, A.A. Experimenting Technology Enhancement Active Learning with Support of Mobile Device, Gamification and Augmented Reality Application. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2018, 24, 7871–7875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Ierache, J.; Mangiarua, N.A.; Becerra, M.E.; Igarza, S. Framework for the Development of Augmented Reality Applications Applied to Education Games. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 340–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Ati, M.; Abdullahi, H.; Kabir, K.; Ahmed, M. Implementation of Augmented Reality in the Teaching of Young Children. In Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Buzko, V.L.; Bonk, A.V.; Tron, V.V. Implementation of Gamification and Elements of Augmented Reality During the Binary Lessons in a Secondary School. Educ. Dimens. 2018, 51, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  196. Pombo, L.; Marques, M.M. The EduPARK Mobile Augmented Reality Game: Learning Value and Usability. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference Mobile Learning, Lisbon, Portugal, 14–16 April 2018; International Associationn for Development of the Information Society (IADIS). 2018; pp. 23–30. [Google Scholar]
  197. Song, D.; Xu, H.; Yu, T.; Tavares, A. An Enjoyable Learning Experience in Personalising Learning Based on Knowledge Management: A Case Study. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 13, 3001–3008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Chujitarom, W.; Piriyasurawong, P. Animation Augmented Reality Book Model (AAR Book Model) to Enhance Teamwork. Int. Educ. Stud. 2017, 10, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  199. Salah, J.; Abdennadher, S.; Atef, S. Galaxy Shop: Projection-Based Numeracy Game for Teenagers with down Syndrome. In Serious Games; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Faisal, S. Gamification of Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning Using Mobile Augmented Reality. IEEE DOI 2017, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Moreira, F.; Durão, N.; Pereira, C.S.; Ferreira, M.J. Mobile learning with gamification and augmented reality in Portuguese High Education. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN17), Barcelona, Spain, 3–5 July 2017; IATED: Valencia, Spain, 2017; pp. 4263–4273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  202. Pombo, L.; Marques, M.M.; Lucas, M.; Carlos, V.; Loureiro, M.J.; Guerra, C. Moving Learning into a Smart Urban Park: Students’ Perceptions of the Augmented Reality EduPARK Mobile Game. IxDA 2017, 35, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Liu, Y.; Holden, D.; Zheng, D. Analyzing Students’ Language Learning Experience in an Augmented Reality Mobile Game: An Exploration of an Emergent Learning Environment. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 228, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  204. Salman, F.H.; Riley, D.R. Augmented Reality Crossover Gamified Design for Sustainable Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the 2016 Future Technologies Conference (FTC), San Francisco, CA, USA, 6–7 December 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1353–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Brown, T.M.; Smith, T.R.; Gabbard, J.L.; Gilbert, J.E. Augmenting Mathematical Education for Minority Students. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Austin, TX, USA, 25–28 July 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 260–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Bicen, H.; Bal, E. Determination of Student Opinions in Augmented Reality. World J. Educ. Technol. Curr. Issues 2016, 8, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  207. Chen, M.-P.; Liao, B.-C. Augmented Reality Laboratory for High School Electrochemistry Course. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Washington, USA, 6–9 July 2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Sheng, L.Y. Modelling Learning from Ingress (Google’s Augmented Reality Social Game). In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 63rd Annual Conference International Council for Education Media (ICEM), Singapore, 1–4 October 2013; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 1993, 38, 475–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  210. Yusoff, A.F.M.; Romli, A.B. Usability of Mobile Application (Mobile Apps) in The Course of Science, Technology and Engineering in Islam (M-ISTECH) Polytechnis in Malaysia. Malays. Online J. Educ. 2018, 2, 18–28. [Google Scholar]
  211. Pekrun, R.; Goetz, T.; Frenzel, A.C.; Barchfeld, P.; Perry, R.P. Measuring Emotions in Students’ Learning and Performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 36, 36–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  212. Kiili, K. Digital Game-Based Learning: Towards an Experiential Gaming Model. Internet High. Educ. 2005, 8, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Liang, H.; Xue, Y.L. Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2010, 11, 394–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  214. Keller, J.M. The Systematic Process of Motivational Design. Perform. Instr. 1987, 26, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  216. Witmer, B.G.; Singer, M.J. Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1998, 7, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Wommer, F.G.B.; Loreto, E.M.S.; Sepel, L.M.N.; Loreto, E.L.S. Retracing and Rewriting Hooke’s Micrographia Book for Teaching History of Science. J. Biol. Educ. 2017, 52, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Reyes, A.M.; Villegas, O.O.V.; Bojórquez, E.M.; Sánchez, V.G.C.; Nandayapa, M. A Mobile Augmented Reality System to Support Machinery Operations in Scholar Environments. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2016, 24, 967–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Likert, R. The Method of Constructing an Attitude Scale. In Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurements; Fishbein, M., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1967; pp. 90–95. [Google Scholar]
  220. Fu, F.-L.; Su, R.-C.; Yu, S.-C. EGameFlow: A Scale to Measure Learners’ Enjoyment of e-Learning Games. Comput. Educ. 2009, 52, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Codish, D.; Ravid, G. Academic Course Gamification: The Art of Perceived Playfulness. Interdiscip. J. E-Learn. Learn. Objects 2014, 10, 131–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  222. Brooke, J. SUS: A Quick and Dirty’ Usability Scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 1996, 189, 4–7. [Google Scholar]
  223. Chau, P.Y.K.; Hu, P.J.-H. Information Technology Acceptance by Individual Professionals: A Model Comparison Approach. Decis. Sci. 2001, 32, 699–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Teo, T. Modelling Technology Acceptance in Education: A Study of Pre-Service Teachers. Comput. Educ. 2009, 52, 302–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Ryan, R.M. Control and Information in the Intrapersonal Sphere: An Extension of Cognitive Evaluation Theory. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1982, 43, 450–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Pearce, J.; Ainley, M.; Howard, S. The Ebb and Flow of Online Learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2005, 21, 745–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Pintrich, P.R.; Smith, D.A.D.; Garcia, T.; McKeachie, W.J. A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ); University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Post-secondary Teaching and Learning: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  228. Faragher, R.; Brown, R.I. Numeracy for Adults with down Syndrome: It’s a Matter of Quality of Life. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2005, 49, 761–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Caldiera, V.R.B.G.; Rombach, H.D. The Goal Question Metric Approach. Encycl. Softw. Eng. 1994, 2, 528–532. [Google Scholar]
  230. Hsieh, M.-C.; Kuo, F.-R.; Lin, H.-C.K. The Effect of Employing AR Interactive Approach on Students’ English Preposition Learning Performance. J. Comput. Appl. Sci. Educ. 2014, 1, 45–60. [Google Scholar]
  231. Emerson, R.M.; Fretz, R.I.; Shaw, L.L. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  232. Noor, N.M.; Yussof, R.L.; Yusoff, F.H.; Ismail, M. Gamification and Augmented Reality Utilization for Islamic Content Learning: The Design and Development of Tajweed Learning. In Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Laricchia, F. Mobile OS Market Share 2021. In Statista. 2022. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/ (accessed on 13 April 2022).
  234. Resnyansky, D. Augmented Reality-Supported Tangible Gamification for Debugging Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), Piscataway, NJ, USA, 8–11 December; pp. 377–383. [CrossRef]
  235. Tóth, R.; Zichar, M.; Hoffmann, M. Improving and Measuring Spatial Skills with Augmented Reality and Gamification. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 755–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Nebril, J.; Benito, A.; Nolla, Á. Augmented Reality in Mathematics Education: A Gamification Proposal for Secondary School. In Proceedings of the CIVINEDU Conference 2020: 4th International Virtual Conference on Educational Research and Innovation, 28–9 September 2020; pp. 155–157. [Google Scholar]
  237. Suvajdzic, M.; Oliverio, J.; Barmpoutis, A.; Wood, L.; Burgermeister, P. Discover DaVinci—A Gamified Blockchain Learning App. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), Piscataway, NJ, USA, 3–6 May 2020; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Alptekin, M.; Temmen, K. Gamification in an Augmented Reality Based Virtual Preparation Laboratory Training. In The Challenges of the Digital Transformation in Education; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 567–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Toth, R.; Zichar, M.; Hoffmann, M. Gamified Mental Cutting Test for Enhancing Spatial Skills. In Proceedings of the 2020 11th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom), Piscataway, NJ, USA, 23–25 September 2020; pp. 299–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Kiourt, C.; Kalles, D.; Lalos, A.; Papastamatiou, N.; Silitziris, P.; Paxinou, E.; Theodoropoulou, H.; Zafeiropoulos, V.; Papadopoulos, A.; Pavlidis, G. XRLabs: Extended Reality Interactive Laboratories. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education; SciTePress—Science and Technology Publications: Setúbal, Portugal, 2–4 May 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Argo, A.; Arrigo, M.; Bucchieri, F.; Cappello, F.; Paola, F.D.; Farella, M.; Fucarino, A.; Lanzarone, A.; Bosco, G.L.; Saguto, D.; et al. Augmented Reality Gamification for Human Anatomy. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 409–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Sharma, V.; Talukdar, J.; Bhagar, K.K. CodAR: An Augmented Reality Based Game to Teach Programming. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computers in Education, Kenting, Taiwan, 2–6 December 2019; Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. 2019; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  243. Cwierz, H.; Díaz-Barrancas, F.; Pardo, P.J.; Guisado, J.I.; Ruiz-Palma, C. Improving programming learning with augmented reality and gamification. In Proceedings of the EDULEARN19 Proceedings, Palma Spain, 1–3 July 2019; IATED: Valencia, Spain, 2019; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Deng, L.; Tian, J.; Cornwell, C.; Phillips, V.; Chen, L.; Alsuwaida, A. Towards an Augmented Reality-Based Mobile Math Learning Game System. In Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Hensen, B.; Koren, I.; Klamma, R.; Herrler, A. An Augmented Reality Framework for Gamified Learning. In Advances in Web-Based Learning—ICWL 2018; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Nguyen, N.; Muilu, T.; Dirin, A.; Alamäki, A. An Interactive and Augmented Learning Concept for Orientation Week in Higher Education. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2018, 15, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  247. McFadden, C.; Porter, S. Augmented reality escape rooms as high-engagement educational resources. In Proceedings of the ICERI2018 Proceedings, Seville, Spain, 12–14 November 2018; IATED: Valencia, Spain, 2018; pp. 4361–4365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Rammos, D.; Bratitsis, T. Inclusive Strategies for the History Subject in 6th Grade of Greek Primary School. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-Exclusion, Thessaloniki, Greece, 20–22 June 2018; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Gramajo, M.G.; Lezcano, F.T.; Lobo, S.G.; Juarez, G.; Fraga, A.L. SIMNET: Simulation-Based Exercises for Computer Network Curriculum Through Gamification and Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE World Engineering Education Conference (EDUNINE), Buenos Aires, Argentina, 11–14 March 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  250. Chujitarom, W.; Piriyasurawong, P. STEAM-GAAR Field Learning Model to Enhance Grit. Int. Educ. Stud. 2018, 11, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  251. Flores, P.G.R.; Medina, J.A.M.; Mendivil, E.G.; Villarreal, A.R.V. Using Augmented Reality and Kinect Technologies to Promote Reading Habits. In Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Zikas, P.; Bachlitzanakis, V.; Papaefthymiou, M.; Kateros, S.; Georgiou, S.; Lydatakis, N.; Papagiannakis, G. Mixed Reality Serious Games and Gamification for Smart Education. In Proceedings of the European conference on games based learning, Academic Conferences International Limited, Paisley, UK, 6–7 October 2016; pp. 805–812. [Google Scholar]
  253. Petrucco, C.; Agostini, D. Teaching Cultural Heritage Using Mobile Augmented Reality. J. E-Learn. Knowl. Soc. 2016, 12, 115–128. [Google Scholar]
  254. Dita, F.-A. A Foreign Language Learning Application Using Mobile Augmented Reality. Inform. Econ. 2016, 20, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Colpani, R.; Homem, M.R.P. An Innovative Augmented Reality Educational Framework with Gamification to Assist the Learning Process of Children with Intellectual Disabilities. In Proceedings of the 2015 6th international conference on information, intelligence, systems and applications (IISA), Corfu, Greece, 6–8 July 2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Shih, D.-T.; Lin, C.L.; Tseng, C.-Y. Combining Digital Archives Content with Serious Game Approach to Create a Gamified Learning Experience. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2015, XL-5/W7, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  257. Eleftheria, C.A.; Charikleia, P.; Iason, C.G.; Athanasios, T.; Dimitrios, T. An Innovative Augmented Reality Educational Platform Using Gamification to Enhance Lifelong Learning and Cultural Education. In Proceedings of the IISA 2013, Piraeus, Greece, 10–12 July 2013; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Eleftheria, A.; Plessa, C.; Chatziparadeisis, I.; Tsolis, D.; Tsakalidis, A. Design and Development of Educational Platform in Augmented Reality Environment Using Gamification to Enhance Traditional, Electronic and Lifelong Learning Experience. In Proceedings of the BCI’13: 6th Balkan Conference in Informatics, Thessaloniki, Greece, 19–21 September 2013; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 92–95. [Google Scholar]
  259. Ramírez, P.; Ramírez, H.; Infante, L.D.; López, J.M.; Rosquillas, J.; Villegas, A.L.; Santana, D.; Vega, D. de la Explora méxico: A Mobile Application to Learn Mexico’s Geography. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 25, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  260. An, Y. A History of Instructional Media, Instructional Design, and Theories. Int. J. Technol. Educ. 2021, 4, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Carlo, G. Augmented Reality and Gamification: A Framework for Developing Supplementary Learning Tool. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Res. 2021, 5, 595–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Mattera, M.; Gava, L.; Urena, R.; Ropero, E. Backing the Right Horse: Gamification and Mixed Realities in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the 2021 the 4th International Conference on Information Science and Systems, Edinburgh, UK, 17–19 March 2021; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 138–142. [Google Scholar]
  263. Pinto, R.D.; Peixoto, B.; Melo, M.; Cabral, L.; Bessa, M. Foreign Language Learning Gamification Using Virtual Reality-a Systematic Review of Empirical Research. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Ramírez-Verdugo, M.D.; López, M. Gamification and Augmented Reality to Upgrade Elementary Bilingual Education Students’ Health and Engagement. In Interdisciplinary Approaches toward Enhancing Teacher Education; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 95–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Cleto, B. Learning Systems and Gamification. In Advances in Medical Technologies and Clinical Practice; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Motejlek, J.; Alpay, E. Taxonomy of Virtual and Augmented Reality Applications in Education. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2021, 14, 415–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Cook, J.; Brown, M.; Sellwood, M.; Campbell, C.; Kouppas, P.; Poronnik, P. XR Game Development as a Tool for Authentic, Experiential, and Collaborative Learning. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2021, 49, 846–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Fan, M.; Antle, A.N.; Warren, J.L. Augmented Reality for Early Language Learning: A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Application Design, Instructional Strategies, and Evaluation Outcomes. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2020, 58, 1059–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Bruno, L.E. Get Gamified: Promoting Augmented Reality and Digital Game Technology in Education. In Augmented Reality Games I; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 237–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  270. Moreno Martinez, N.M.; Leiva Olivencia, J.J.; Matas Terron, A. Mobile Learning, Gamification and Augmented Reality for the Teaching and Learning of Languages. Int. J. Educ. Res. Innov. IJERI 2016, 6, 16–34. [Google Scholar]
  271. Chauhan, J.; Taneja, S.; Goel, A. Enhancing MOOC with Augmented Reality, Adaptive Learning and Gamification. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 3rd International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), Amritsar, India, 1–2 October 2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 348–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Dunleavy, M. Design Principles for Augmented Reality Learning. TechTrends 2013, 58, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Talley, T. The STEM Coaching Handbook; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Nielsen, J. Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users. In Nielsen Norman Group. 2000. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users/ (accessed on 13 April 2022).
  275. Romero, M.; Usart, M.; Ott, M. Can Serious Games Contribute to Developing and Sustaining 21st Century Skills? Games Cult. 2014, 10, 148–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Sung, Y.-T.; Chang, K.-E.; Liu, T.-C. The Effects of Integrating Mobile Devices with Teaching and Learning on Students Learning Performance: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Comput. Educ. 2016, 94, 252–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  277. Lally, V.; Sharples, M.; Tracy, F.; Bertram, N.; Masters, S. Researching the Ethical Dimensions of Mobile, Ubiquitous and Immersive Technology Enhanced Learning (MUITEL): A Thematic Review and Dialogue. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2012, 20, 217–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  278. Kearsley, G.; Shneiderman, B. Engagement Theory: A Framework for Technology-Based Teaching and Learning. Educ. Technol. 1998, 38, 20–23. [Google Scholar]
  279. Dede, C.J.; Jacobson, J.; Richards, J. Introduction: Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Education. In Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Education; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Rupp, M.A.; Odette, K.L.; Kozachuk, J.; Michaelis, J.R.; Smither, J.A.; McConnell, D.S. Investigating Learning Outcomes and Subjective Experiences in 360-Degree Videos. Comput. Educ. 2019, 128, 256–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Romasz, T.E.; Kantor, J.H.; Elias, M.J. Implementation and Evaluation of Urban School-Wide Social-Emotional Learning Programs. Eval. Program Plan. 2004, 27, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Johnson, L.; Becker, S.A.; Estrada, V.; Freeman, A. NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Museum Edition; The New Media Consortium: Austin, TX, USA, 2015; pp. 1–50. [Google Scholar]
  283. Marín-Díaz, V. The Relationships Between Augmented Reality and Inclusive Education in Higher Education. Bordón. Rev. Pedagog. 2017, 69, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  284. Simões, J.; Redondo, R.D.; Vilas, A.F. A Social Gamification Framework for a k-6 Learning Platform. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Dede, C. Immersive Interfaces for Engagement and Learning. Science 2009, 323, 66–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  286. Shapley, K.; Sheehan, D.; Maloney, C.; Caranikas-Walker, F. Effects of Technology Immersion on Middle School Students’ Learning Opportunities and Achievement. J. Educ. Res. 2011, 104, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Beck, D. Augmented and Virtual Reality in Education: Immersive Learning Research. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2019, 57, 1619–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Brown, J.S.; Collins, A.; Duguid, P. Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educ. Res. 1989, 18, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development; FT Press: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  290. Jonassen, D.H. Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist View of Instructional Design. Educ. Technol. 1990, 30, 32–34. [Google Scholar]
  291. Roseth, C.J.; Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T. Promoting Early Adolescents’ Achievement and Peer Relationships: The Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 134, 223–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Sharan, Y. Cooperative Learning for Academic and Social Gains: Valued Pedagogy, Problematic Practice. Eur. J. Educ. 2010, 45, 300–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Prodromou, T. Augmented Reality in Educational Settings; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  294. Gimbert, B.; Cristol, D. Teaching Curriculum with Technology: Enhancing Children’s Technological Competence During Early Childhood. Early Child. Educ. J. 2003, 31, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Rajanen, M.; Rajanen, D. Usability Benefits in Gamification. GamiFIN 2017, 87, 95. [Google Scholar]
  296. Hamari, J.; Koivisto, J. Working Out for Likes: An Empirical Study on Social Influence in Exercise Gamification. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 50, 333–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Liu, D.; Santhanam, R.; Webster, J. Toward Meaningful Engagement: A Framework for Design and Research of Gamified Information Systems. MIS Q. 2017, 41, 1011–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  298. Rodrigues, L.F.; Costa, C.J.; Oliveira, A. How Gamification Can Influence the Web Design and the Customer to Use the e-Banking Systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems and Design of Communication—ISDOC’14, Lisbon, Portugal, 16–17 May 2014; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  299. Huotari, K.; Hamari, J. A Definition for Gamification: Anchoring Gamification in the Service Marketing Literature. Electron. Mark. 2016, 27, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  300. Kiryakova, G.; Angelova, N.; Yordanova, L. Gamification in Education. In Proceedings of the 9th International Balkan Education and Science Conference, Edirne, Turkey, 16–18 October 2014. [Google Scholar]
  301. Sweetser, P.; Wyeth, P. GameFlow: A Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment in Games. Comput. Entertain. 2005, 3, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. Haugstvedt, A.-C.; Krogstie, J. Mobile Augmented Reality for Cultural Heritage: A Technology Acceptance Study. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR), Atlanta, GA, USA, 5–8 November 2012; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  303. Tan, W.H. Gamifikasi Dalam Pendidikan Pembelajaran Berasaskan Permainan; Penerbit Universiti Sultan Idris: Tanjung Malim, Malaysia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  304. Mayer, R.; Mayer, R.E. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  305. Zichermann, G.; Cunningham, C. Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps; O’Reilly Media, Inc.: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  306. Malone, T.W.; Lepper, M.R. Making Learning Fun: A Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivations for Learning. Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction 1987, 223–254. [Google Scholar]
  307. Georgiou, Y.; Kyza, E.A. Relations Between Student Motivation, Immersion and Learning Outcomes in Location-Based Augmented Reality Settings. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 89, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  308. Swartout, W.; van Lent, M. Making a Game of System Design. Commun. ACM 2003, 46, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  309. Crocco, F.; Offenholley, K.; Hernandez, C. A Proof-of-Concept Study of Game-Based Learning in Higher Education. Simul. Gaming 2016, 47, 403–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  310. Pozo-Sánchez, S.; Lampropoulos, G.; López-Belmonte, J. Comparing Gamification Models in Higher Education Using Face-to-Face and Virtual Escape Rooms. J. New Approaches Educ. Res. 2022, 2, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  311. Sylwester, R. How Emotions Affect Learning. Educ. Leadersh. 1994, 52, 60–65. [Google Scholar]
  312. Barab, S.; Zuiker, S.; Warren, S.; Hickey, D.; Ingram-Goble, A.; Kwon, E.-J.; Kouper, I.; Herring, S.C. Situationally Embodied Curriculum: Relating Formalisms and Contexts. Sci. Educ. 2007, 91, 750–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  313. El-Masri, M.; Tarhini, A. A Design Science Approach to Gamify Education: From Games to Platforms. In Proceedings of the ECIS 2015 Research-in-Progress Papers, Münster, Germany, 26–29 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
  314. Dondlinger, M.J. Educational Video Game Design: A Review of the Literature. J. Appl. Educ. Technol. 2007, 4, 21–31. [Google Scholar]
  315. Klopfer, E.; Squire, K. Environmental Detectives—The Development of an Augmented Reality Platform for Environmental Simulations. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2007, 56, 203–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  316. Dunleavy, M.; Dede, C.; Mitchell, R. Affordances and Limitations of Immersive Participatory Augmented Reality Simulations for Teaching and Learning. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2008, 18, 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  317. Robson, K.; Plangger, K.; Kietzmann, J.H.; McCarthy, I.; Pitt, L. Is It All a Game? Understanding the Principles of Gamification. Bus. Horiz. 2015, 58, 411–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  318. Sharples, M.; de Roock, R.; Ferguson, R.; Gaved, M.; Herodotou, C.; Koh, E.; Kukulska-Hulme, A.; Looi, C.-K.; McAndrew, P.; Rienties, B.; et al. Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5; Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University: Liverpool, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Applsci 12 06809 g001 550
Figure 1. Prisma flow diagram.
Figure 1. Prisma flow diagram.
Applsci 12 06809 g001
Applsci 12 06809 g002 550
Figure 2. Countries in which the experiments/studies were carried out.
Figure 2. Countries in which the experiments/studies were carried out.
Applsci 12 06809 g002
Applsci 12 06809 g003 550
Figure 3. Empirical studies: educational stages.
Figure 3. Empirical studies: educational stages.
Applsci 12 06809 g003
Applsci 12 06809 g004 550
Figure 4. Empirical studies: developmental categories.
Figure 4. Empirical studies: developmental categories.
Applsci 12 06809 g004
Applsci 12 06809 g005 550
Figure 5. Empirical studies: research methods.
Figure 5. Empirical studies: research methods.
Applsci 12 06809 g005
Applsci 12 06809 g006 550
Figure 6. Empirical studies: operating systems.
Figure 6. Empirical studies: operating systems.
Applsci 12 06809 g006
Applsci 12 06809 g007 550
Figure 7. Empirical studies: devices used.
Figure 7. Empirical studies: devices used.
Applsci 12 06809 g007
Applsci 12 06809 g008 550
Figure 8. Proposal and prototype papers: educational stages.
Figure 8. Proposal and prototype papers: educational stages.
Applsci 12 06809 g008
Table
Table 1. Empirical studies: general information.
Table 1. Empirical studies: general information.
Ref.CountryEduc. StagesFocus AreaDevelop. CategorySampleAims
[81]CanadaHigher educationLanguage learning (French)Cognitive11 first-year higher school studentsTo assess the potential of a mobile application that uses augmented reality and gamification to bridge the gap between education and gaming.
[137]Spainn/aMusicCognitive5 teachers and 13 students from a musical schoolTo break the initial curve of learning music by motivating students and facilitating the learning process through an augmented reality application.
[138]IndonesiaPrimary educationArtCognitiven/aTo create an augmented reality application to introduce batik design as a form of cultural art to primary school students.
[139]IndonesiaPrimary educationCultureCognitivePrimary school students and teachersTo develop an application that uses augmented reality and gamification and to analyze its impact on primary school students’ knowledge of Indonesian culture learning.
[140]MalaysiaPrimary educationScienceCognitive9 primary school students and 1 teacherTo design and develop an augmented reality application that utilizes gamification elements to improve primary school students’ knowledge of microorganisms.
[141]PeruPrimary educationMathematicsCognitive21 sixth-grade primary school studentsTo assess the impact of gamification and augmented reality on motivating primary school students to learn mathematics.
[142]BrazilPrimary educationAssociation of images with wordsCognitive2 studentsTo gamify a crucial clinic activity for children on the autistic spectrum, namely the correlation of words with images.
[143]RomaniaHigher educationMedical educationCognitive9 university medical studentsTo promote self-learning, increase the learning desire, and facilitate the identification of skin-related medical conditions.
[144]SpainPrimary educationEmotion detectionCognitive and social–emotional38 fifth-grade primary school studentsTo compare the impact that competitive and collaborative gameplay styles have on students’ communication and motivation.
[145]TaiwanSecondary educationHealth educationCognitive and social–emotional52 senior high school studentsTo design an educational augmented reality board game that capitalizes on card games, slides, and learning sheets to promote health education and compare its influence on students’ different emotions.
[146]Hong KongHigher educationHistory and cultureCognitive35 university studentsTo present preliminary results regarding the use of an augmented reality application with gamification elements to improve students’ educational experiences when learning history and culture during field trips.
[147]KoreaHigher educationLanguage learning (English)Cognitive40 college studentsTo look into the way technology facilitates language learning and how students use the physical properties and context of a digital learning environment.
[148]TaiwanSecondary educationHealth educationCognitive52 high school studentsTo discuss the effectiveness of integrating augmented reality into board games to increase learning motivation and acceptance.
[149]PortugalHigher educationCulinaryCognitiven/aTo present the benefits of using gamification and immersive technologies in the learning process to motivate self-learning and continuous improvement.
[150]MalaysiaPrimary educationScienceCognitive20 public primary school studentsTo investigate the impact of utilizing augmented reality on students’ learning of the solar system.
[151]CanadaHigher educationLanguage learning (French)Cognitive58 university studentsTo analyze students’ viewpoints regarding their learning experiences and their collaboration in immersive learning environments.
[152]GreecePrimary educationLanguage learning (English)Cognitive20 first-grade primary school studentsTo investigate how augmented reality and gamified activities can enrich students’ vocabulary in foreign language learning.
[153]BrazilSecondary educationEntomologyCognitive21 middle school studentsTo examine how gamified augmented reality experiences impact students’ comprehension of entomological nomenclature and concepts and the development of skills that make them more focused on details.
[154]SpainPrimary educationMathematicsCognitive37 primary school studentsTo showcase that gamified augmented reality applications can make multiplication table learning more enjoyable and less monotonous for primary school students.
[155]JapanHigher educationLanguage learning (Japanese)Cognitive18 university studentsTo examine how using gamification and augmented reality can affect beginner language learners of Japanese and assist them in preparing for disastrous encounters.
[156]Hong KongHigher educationChemistryCognitive46 university students with 37 valid responsesShowcase the potential of using augmented reality along with gamification to support Chemistry learning in flipped classrooms.
[157]GreecePrimary educationLanguage learning (Greek)CognitivePrimary school teachers and studentsTo utilize a game-based learning and augmented reality approach to raise students’ awareness regarding recycling and COVID-19 and simultaneously enhance their related to the topic vocabulary.
[158]GreecePrimary educationComputer science (Programming)Cognitive15 primary school studentsTo examine whether primary school students could understand the concept of intelligent environments and their programmable features through a gamified augmented reality application.
[159]SpainHigher educationComputer science (Distributed architectures)CognitiveUniversity studentsTo create a fun and playful experience to motivate students to review their acquired knowledge on given subjects through an augmented reality serious game.
[160]Sri LankaHigher educationBiologyn/an/aTo introduce an augmented reality application that utilizes real-time image processing and recognition to support Biology learning.
[161]ChinaHigher educationLanguage learning (English)Cognitive50 vocational college studentsTo study how gamified augmented reality learning experiences can affect students’ learning motivation and collaboration in English courses.
[162]United KingdomSecondary educationGeometryCognitive120 middle school studentsTo analyze the motivational effects that various gamification elements have on educational augmented reality applications.
[163]GermanyK-12 educationCulture and language learningn/an/aTo showcase how augmented reality combined with gamification and machine learning can create immersive and interactive learning experiences for K-12 students.
[164]BrazilHigher educationAnatomyCognitive6 participants (university students and/or professionals)To present and evaluate an augmented reality application that uses game concepts to facilitate bone anatomy learning.
[165]AustraliaHigher educationComputer science (Cybersecurity)Cognitive91 university students (41 Bachelor, 34 Master, 16 Ph.D.)To develop and present a game design that uses an augmented reality application to motivate students to be more aware and cautious of cybersecurity attacks.
[166]ChinaHigher educationLanguage learning (English)Cognitive5 college students, 5 English teachers, and 5 techniciansTo assess students’ acceptance levels of integrating an augmented reality application that uses gamification elements in English language learning.
[167]GermanyHigher educationEnvironmental engineeringCognitive19 university studentsTo assess the impact of a location-based augmented reality application, which uses game mechanisms on university students’ learning about environmental engineering.
[168]GreecePrimary educationComputer science (Programming)Cognitiveprimary school studentsTo examine whether primary school students find gamified augmented reality applications enjoyable and if they help them create rules to overcome learning problems.
[169]SpainHigher educationChemical EngineeringCognitive179 university students throughout a period of 4 yearsTo showcase how the use of gamification elements and augmented reality can support and improve students’ learning and comprehension of diverse topics while also increasing their academic results.
[170]SpainK-12 educationComputer science (Programming)Cognitive12 primary school studentsTo present an easy-to-use gamified augmented reality application that supports students’ knowledge acquisition while increasing their computational thinking and motivation.
[171,172]PortugalHigher educationGeneral knowledgeCognitive212 university professors (80 from S. Europe, 61 from S. America, and 71 from Asia)To investigate how higher education professors in southern Europe, South America, and Asia view the use of mobile technologies and particularly the use of augmented reality and gamification applications within education.
[173]TaiwanSecondary educationATM skillsCognitive3 junior high school studentsTo increase ATM skills in students with intellectual disabilities.
[174]PortugalPrimary educationAstronomyCognitive90 primary school students and teachersTo showcase an educational augmented reality game, which aims at raising students’ awareness of astronomy concepts and promoting their learning regarding the planetary systems in formal and informal learning environments.
[175]GreecePrimary educationComputational thinkingCognitive26 primary school studentsTo showcase a collaborative mobile augmented reality application that implements game elements to assist primary school students in developing their critical thinking skills.
[176]TaiwanSecondary educationLanguage learning (English)Cognitive65 junior high school studentsTo examine how iMap-enhanced and AR-enhanced learning within a gamified language learning context affects low achievers’ learning attitudes and performance.
[177]ThailandHigher educationDigital literacyCognitive197 university students (1st experiment) and 80 university students (2nd experiment)To create interactive augmented reality experiences using gamification elements to influence learners’ digital literacy skills, learning achievements, and satisfaction, and to compare their results with those that follow conventional teaching methods.
[178]MalaysiaPrimary educationLanguage learning (Tajweed)Cognitive and social–emotional198 primary school studentsTo compare the impact of using gamification and augmented reality in Tajweed learning with other novel approaches.
[179]New ZealandHigher educationMusicCognitive23 university studentsTo analyze the potential of implementing gamified augmented reality applications in music education.
[180]ChinaHigher educationEnvironmental educationCognitive98 first-year university studentsTo assess the influence of leveraging mobile augmented reality and gamification in environmental education and comprehend what university students think of this approach.
[181]ThailandHigher educationSTEAMSocial–emotional138 first-year university studentsTo enhance students’ grit using an augmented reality application and compare their grit scores with their learning achievements to comprehend their relationship.
[182]TaiwanK-12 educationSTEMSocial–emotional177 studentsTo analyze and comprehend the behavioral intentions of users that utilize the GAR-STEM teaching application.
[183]ChinaHigher educationLanguage learning (Chinese)Cognitive76 sophomore university studentsTo describe how a mobile-augmented reality sandbox game can affect learning students’ Chinese characters learning.
[184]United StatesHigher educationSpatial abilityCognitive56 freshman university studentsTo evaluate the impact of an augmented reality application on students’ performance and compare the results with those of students who followed conventional educational processes.
[185]ColombiaPrimary educationLanguage learning (English)Cognitive163 primary school studentsTo present how integrating augmented reality through gamification into education can offer better learning results.
[186]United Arab EmiratesPrimary educationLearning to writeCognitivePrimary school studentsTo suggest an augmented reality system that facilitates students’ learning by allowing them to learn at their own pace, encouraging the involvement of their parents in it, and presenting instantaneous feedback.
[187]PortugalPrimary educationAstronomyCognitiveFour groups of primary school studentsTo showcase the results of a preliminary study involving a mobile augmented reality astronomy game that takes place in an informal learning context and supports students’ knowledge acquisition.
[188]ItalySecondary educationAstronomyCognitive14 secondary school studentsTo present a tool and methodology for creating augmented reality geo-localized learning activities and evaluate its effectiveness based on students’ viewpoints.
[189]MalaysiaHigher educationLanguage learningCognitive66 university studentsTo comprehend students’ viewpoints regarding the use of augmented reality and gamification in creating exciting learning experiences that promote active and collaborative learning.
[190]United KingdomPrimary educationAsthma care educationCognitive18 primary school studentsTo propose a mobile augmented reality application that uses game elements to assist students’ self-management in asthma education.
[191]Germanyn/aLanguage learning (Japanese kanji)Cognitive13 studentsTo train students in all aspects of Kanji by capitalizing on the concept of flow to immerse students in a rich Japanese mythology game, which takes place in an augmented reality environment.
[192]MalaysiaHigher educationArchitectureCognitive87 university studentsTo investigate how instructional design can assist in developing mobile augmented reality applications that create enjoyable learning environments, which promote students’ active participation.
[193]Argentinan/aGeneral knowledgeCognitive50 secondary and higher education studentsTo propose a framework for designing augmented reality applications and validating it by creating and assessing an application using the specific framework on a goose board game to reinforce the learning of concepts presented in a traditional classroom.
[194]United Arab EmiratesPrimary educationLearning to writeCognitivePrimary school studentsTo propose an augmented reality application that supports students by enabling them to learn at their own pace and to actively involve their parents.
[195]UkraineSecondary educationPhysics and EnglishCognitiveFour groups of secondary school studentsTo showcase the potential of using gaming elements and augmented reality to support the conduct of binary lessons, such as Physics and English, in secondary education.
[196]PortugalK-12 educationInterdisciplinary themesCognitive24 K-12 education students and 46 higher education onesTo analyze students’ perception of the gamified augmented reality application regarding its usability and learning values, and to comprehend their viewpoints.
[197]ChinaHigher educationComputer science (Web design)Cognitive221 university studentsTo present the benefits of using gamification and augmented reality to create personalized learning experiences in a classroom.
[198]ThailandHigher educationTeamworkn/a5 specialists selected by purposive samplingTo create an augmented reality application that promotes and increases students’ teamwork and to evaluate its effectiveness.
[199]EgyptK-12 educationMathematicsCognitive18 diagnosed Down syndrome teenagersTo present an interactive AR-based game as an instructional means for Down syndrome teenagers.
[200]IndonesiaSecondary educationLanguage learning (French)Cognitive60 secondary school studentsTo create a gamified mobile learning system using augmented reality to improve French language learning.
[201]PortugalHigher educationTeaching and learning processn/a37 university professorsTo examine university professors’ viewpoints regarding the use of mobile learning when combined with augmented reality and gamification to improve students’ learning motivation.
[202]PortugalK-12 educationInterdisciplinary themesCognitive74 primary and secondary school studentsTo design, develop, and evaluate an augmented reality game to promote students’ learning in smart urban parks.
[203]United StatesHigher educationLanguage learning (English)Cognitive3 university studentsTo improve students’ cultural understanding, language development, and communication skills through an augmented reality mobile game.
[204]United StatesSecondary educationEngineeringCognitive20 high school studentsTo present the design process of an augmented reality gamified learning experience and assess its impact on creating sustainable learning opportunities by increasing university students’ sensory capacities.
[205]United StatesK-12 educationMathematicsCognitive5 primary school teachersTo find and showcase the benefits and challenges of personalized gamified augmented reality experiences in K-12 education.
[206]CyprusHigher educationGeneral knowledgen/a97 undergraduate university studentsTo examine the impact of augmented reality in learning in a classroom based on students’ perceptions.
[207]TaiwanSecondary educationChemistryCognitive152 high school studentsTo investigate the impact of different augmented reality types and guiding strategies on high school students’ learning performance and motivation when studying electrochemistry concepts.
[208]Malaysian/aGeneral knowledgeCognitive150 participantsTo investigate the potential of using augmented reality games to support the development of learning through games.
Table
Table 2. Empirical studies: research methods, variables, and tools.
Table 2. Empirical studies: research methods, variables, and tools.
Ref.Research MethodMain VariablesMeasurement Tools—Research Tools
[81]MixedParticipants’ assessments, learning experience, and evaluation of the application playabilityAd hoc pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire, focus groups interviews, audio and video recordings, and data and statistics collection through the ARIS engine
[137]QuantitativeStudents’ and teachers’ viewpoints regarding the perceived ease of use, levels of agreement, and usefulnessAd hoc Likert scale survey following the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [209]
[138]QuantitativeMedia validationAd hoc survey
[139]QuantitativeSystems usability and students’ knowledge acquisitionBlack box tests, ad hoc questionnaire regarding teachers’ judgment and students’ usability assessment
[140]QuantitativeUsability and effectiveness10-item questionnaire presented in [210]
[141]QuantitativeStudents’ comprehension of spatial geometryPre-test and post-test questions regarding spatial geometry
[142]QuantitativeStudents’ ability to link words with imagesAd hoc questionnaire
[143]QuantitativeStudents’ viewpointsAd hoc Likert scale survey
[144]QuantitativeStudents’ viewpoints and observers’ assessmentAd hoc questionnaire, 7 items regarding game mode evaluation, 5 items about observations, and 9 items regarding communication and collaboration
[145]QuantitativeStudents’ learning effectiveness, emotions, and flow experience3 questionnaires, a 56-item ad hoc questionnaire with pre- and post-learning performance scale, the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ) [211], and the Flow Experience Questionnaire designed by [212], as well as the Chinese version designed by [213]
[146]QualitativeStudents’ perspectivesOpen-ended questions
[147]QualitativeHow the application promotes meaningful language learning and how students use place mechanisms within itStudents’ learning outcomes assessment, post-surveys, and reflections, as well as qualitative data regarding application logs and open-ended questions
[148]QuantitativeStudents’ acceptance level and learning motivationThe Instructional Material Motivation Survey (IMMS) [214] and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [215]
[149]QuantitativeControl, sensory, distraction, and realism factors of the overall experienceThe Presence Questionnaire [216]
[150]QuantitativeStudents’ pre-test and post-test scores3 ad hoc pre-test and post-test quizzes, one for each class
[151]MixedTime on task, engagement, and collaborative learningPre-play and post-play questionnaires, interviews, and video recordings
[152]MixedRetention rate, communication and interaction, learners’ attitudes, and overall effect on the educational processPost-test, teachers’/researchers’ journals, and semi-structured interviews
[153]QuantitativeStudents’ knowledge of entomological terms and conceptsMultiple-choice learning tests adapted from the History Word Association Test (HWAT) [217]
[154]QuantitativeLearning effectiveness and usabilityAd hoc pre-test and post-test questionnaires
[155]QuantitativeThe impact of gamified augmented reality application on beginner language learnersAd hoc survey with open-ended questions
[156]QuantitativeStudents’ attitudes26-item questionnaire [64]
[157]QualitativeVocabulary development, students’ active participation, and topic awarenessInterviews with open-ended questions and observations
[158]MixedStudents’ comprehension of intelligent environmentsOpen-ended questions, pre-test, post-test, and observations
[159]QuantitativeStudents’ viewpointsAd hoc questionnaire
[160]QuantitativeImage detection model accuracyCross-validation
[161]QualitativeThe impact of gamified augmented reality on learning motivation and collaborationInterviews
[162]QuantitativeEffects of different gamification mechanisms on learning experiences in augmented reality learning applicationsAd hoc 3-item questionnaire, measuring interest, confidence, and intention
[163]QuantitativeDeep learning model performance3-part questionnaire, including demographic information, user experience, and information comprehension
[164]QuantitativeSystem usability and learning aspectsTwo ad hoc questionnaires regarding the systems interface, interactions, and learning aspects
[165]QuantitativeStudents’ viewpoints7-item ad hoc questionnaire
[166]QuantitativeUsers’ acceptance and application performanceAd hoc questionnaire to evaluate the performance and acceptance of the application following the suggestions made by [218]
[167]QualitativeStudents’ viewpoints, motivation, attitudes, and learning-related outcomesAd hoc questionnaire, observations, protocols, and guided interviews
[168]QualitativeStudents’ errors made, interactions and hints used for each taskObservations
[169]Quantitative4-year academic results in the form of grades and overall module completion rateAcademic performance assessment
[170]MixedStudents’ motivation and interest in programming and their perceptions regarding the usefulness, intention, and usability of the augmented reality applicationAd hoc questionnaire inspired by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [209] and open-ended questions
[171,172]QuantitativeProfessors’ viewpoints41-item online ad hoc questionnaire about students’ demographic information, prior knowledge, engagement, use of mobile devices in the classroom, and self-efficacy
[173]MixedNumber of independently completed tasks when using the ATMDatasheets, observations, and video recordings
[174]MixedStudents’ and teachers’ viewpointsAd hoc questionnaire, open-ended questions, and observations
[175]MixedOverall collaboration, enjoyment, interactivity, and comprehensibilityAd hoc 4-item questionnaire, think-aloud feedback, observations, and performance recordings
[176]QuantitativeStudents’ learning performance and attitudeAd hoc questionnaire regarding students’ attitudes as well as an achievement test
[177]QuantitativeStudents’ learning achievements, digital literacy skills development, and satisfactionAd hoc 20-item subjective test, rubric scoring based on the Likert scale [219]
[178]QuantitativeStudents’ emotional engagement and learning performancePre-test and post-test during design sessions and ad hoc questionnaire adopted from [220,221]
[179]MixedStudents’ viewpoints and system usabilityRecorded comments and feedback and the System Usability Scale (SUS) [222]
[180]MixedStudents’ perceived usefulness, ease of use, attitudes, and behavioral intentionsObservations, interviews, and ad hoc survey with questions adopted from [215,223,224]
[181]QuantitativeStudents’ learning gritSelf-evaluation pre-tests and post-tests regarding students’ grit using scoring rubrics
[182]QuantitativeMedia interactivity, entertainment, practicability, attitude, and behavioral intentionAd hoc questionnaire
[183]QuantitativeStudents’ learning style, learning interest, interactivity, and immersionAd hoc questionnaire
[184]MixedFactors that affect students’ spatial reasoning performance when using the augmented reality applicationPre-test and post-test, data collection through the application, and ad hoc survey based on Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) [225]
[185]QuantitativeStudents’ ability to learn the numbers in EnglishDiagnosis and final verbal tests following a traditional grading system
[186]QuantitativeStudents’ ability to write the English lettersAd hoc survey
[187]QualitativeStudents’ viewpointsAd hoc survey
[188]QualitativeStudents’ viewpoints regarding the support that the tool provides in learning activitiesAd hoc questionnaire
[189]QualitativeStudents’ perceptionsAd hoc online survey and open-ended questions
[190]QuantitativeStudents’ knowledgeAd hoc multiple-choice quiz
[191]QuantitativeStudents’ knowledge of Japanese languagePre-test and post-test ad hoc questionnaire
[192]MixedStudents’ viewpoints and insightsAd hoc questionnaire
[193]QuantitativeStudents’ knowledge retention20 question quiz
[194]QuantitativeStudents’ ability to write the English lettersAd hoc survey
[195]QualitativeStudents’ evaluation of the use of gamified augmented reality in binary lessonsObservations
[196]MixedLearning value and usabilitySystem Usability Scale (SUS) [222], interviews, and usage data of the application
[197]QuantitativeStudents’ engagement, learning outcomes, task completion rate, and final gradeCollection of quantitative data from the final grade and the overall learning path during the experiment
[198]QualitativeSpecialists’ inputs and opinionsObservations and scoring rubric
[199]QuantitativeLearning gains, outcomes, control and joy9-item questionnaire adopted from [226]
[200]QuantitativeStudents’ motivation and learning resultsPre-test and post-test ad hoc questionnaires
[201]QuantitativeHigher education professors’ viewpointsAd hoc questionnaire regarding students’ demographic information, prior knowledge, engagement, and use of mobile devices within the classroom
[202]QualitativeStudents’ viewpoints and perception of joyObservation reports and transcripts
[203]QualitativeStudents’ viewpointsVideo recordings and interviews
[204]MixedLearners’ engagement and the application functionality and featuresGame analytics, video recordings, and photographs of learners, artifacts, and pre- and post-assessment
[205]QualitativeTeachers’ viewpointsInterviews
[206]QuantitativeStudents’ opinions16-item ad hoc questionnaire
[207]QuantitativeThe effect of different augmented reality and guiding strategy types on learning performance and motivationPrior knowledge test, performance test, and ad hoc questionnaire adapted from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) [227]
[208]QuantitativeMain factors that motivate participants to play and urge them to continue playingAd hoc survey
Table
Table 3. Empirical studies: Application development information and gamification elements.
Table 3. Empirical studies: Application development information and gamification elements.
Ref.Application NameDevelopment ToolsOperating SystemDeviceGamification Elements
[81]ExplorezARISiOSMobile devicesGame-like features, badges, and quests
[137]HoloMusic XPVuforiaWindows Holographic OSMicrosoft HoloLensScores and points
[138]BATIK-ARASSEMBLR StudioAndroidMobile devicesPoints and badges
[139]n/an/an/aMobile devicesGame-like features
[140]MicroorganismsUnity, Autodesk 3Ds Max, Vuforia and FirebaseAndroidMobile devicesQuiz questions, timer, and scores
[141]VoluminisARCore, Unity, Firebase and BlenderAndroidMobile devicesPoints and leaderboards
[142]AssociARUnity and VuforiaAndroidMobile devicesGame-like features
[143]n/aOpenCV and UnityAndroidMobile devicesPoints and leaderboards
[146]n/aAurasmaAndroid and iOSMobile devicesVirtual rewards
[144]EmoFindARUnity, Photon Unity Networking and Placenote SDKAndroidMobile devicesCompetitive and collaborative game modes, points, and quiz questions
[145]n/an/an/aMobile devicesBoard game, game-like features, quiz questions, points, cards, slides, and learning sheets
[147]n/an/an/aMobile devicesDigital stories
[148]Get ahead in medical knowledgeRAVVAR appiOSMobile devicesCards, slides, and learning sheets
[149]n/aARFoundation library and UnityAndroidMobile devicesPoints, levels, badges, and achievements
[150]SoLAR Kidn/aAndroidMobile devicesAchievements and points
[151]Explorez and VdeUVicARISiOSMobile devicesLevels and quests
[152]n/an/an/aMobile devicesn/a
[153]n/an/an/aMobile devicesObjectives, levels, points, timer, virtual rewards, collaboration, feedback, challenges, and progression
[154]n/aUnity and VuforiaAndroid and iOSMobile devicesMini games and game-like features
[155]n/aARISiOSMobile devicesn/a
[156]n/aUnity and VuforiaAndroid and iOSMobile devicesGame-like features
[157]n/aARFoundation, Unity and ARCoreAndroidMobile devicesGame-like features
[158]n/an/an/aMobile devicesPoints and game-like features
[159]vAnswerUnity and VuforiaAndroidMobile devicesQuiz questions and points
[160]Amazon BiologyUnity and Android StudioAndroidMobile devicesQuiz questions and puzzles
[161]n/an/an/aMobile devicesGame-like features, quests and points
[162]n/aUnity, Vuforia and Autodesk MayaAndroidMobile devicesQuiz questions, timer, badges, and points
[163]ArsinoëAndroid Studio and TensorFlowAndroidMobile devicesQuiz questions and points
[164]BN AnatomyARFoundation, ARCore, Unity and ManomotionAndroidMobile devicesQuiz questions, scores, timer, virtual rewards, progression, feedback, and competition
[165]CybARUnity and VuforiaAndroidMobile devicesQuiz questions and points
[166]GARMAUnity and Alibaba Cloud Elastic Compute ServiceAndroidMobile devicesGame-like features, scores, and leaderboards
[167]PlayVisitn/an/aMobile devicesPoints and virtual rewards
[168]MagiPlayUnity and ARKitiOSMobile devicesPoints and levels
[169]n/an/an/an/aGame-like features, tasks, and role-playelements
[170]RoboTICUnityWindows Holographic OSMicrosoft HoloLensGame-like features, badges, and achievements
[171,172]n/an/an/an/an/a
[173]n/aHP RevealAndroid and iOSMobile devicesGame-like features
[174]PlanetarySystemGOUnity and VuforiaAndroidMobile devicesGame-like features, quiz questions, and points
[175]ARQuestUnity and VuforiaAndroidMobile devicesVirtual tokens, digital stories, and challenges
[176]n/an/an/aMobile devicesVirtual rewards and points
[177]n/an/an/aMobile devicesGame-like features, quiz questions, and scores
[178]TARGaLMn/an/aMobile devicesPoints, badges, and leaderboards
[179]MRPTUnityAndroidHTC Vive Pro HMDGame-like features, scores, and feedback
[180]n/an/an/aMobile devicesGame-like features
[181]STEAM-GAARn/an/aMobile devicesPoints, leaderboards, and virtual rewards
[182]GARSTEMn/an/an/an/a
[183]n/an/an/aMobile devicesGame-like features, feedback, points, and virtual rewards
[184]n/an/an/aMobile devicesScores and mini games
[185]n/an/an/aLeap Motion ControllerLevels, tasks, and virtual rewards
[186]n/aOpenCVn/aMobile devicesGame-like features
[187]SolarSystemGOn/an/aMobile devicesGame-like features, quiz questions, points, and virtual rewards
[188]Hunting Game Generatorn/an/aMobile devicesGame-like features and quiz questions
[189]Xplorerafe+n/an/aMobile devicesGame-like features and quests
[190]MySpiraUnivty, Vuforia, ARKit and ARCoreAndroidMobile devicesGame-like features, quiz questions, and points
[191]Dragon Talen/an/aMobile devicesGame-like features, mini games, quiz questions, points, and puzzles
[192]n/an/an/aMobile devicesQuiz questions and points
[193]n/aUnity and VuforiaAndroidMobile devicesQuiz questions and board games
[194]n/aOpenCVn/aMobile devicesGame-like features
[195]n/an/an/aMobile devicesQuests, puzzles, and levels
[196]EduPARKUnity and VuforiaAndroidMobile devicesQuiz questions, points, and tasks
[197]n/an/an/aMobile devices and SmartBandsGame-like features and tasks
[198]AAR Book Modeln/an/an/an/a
[199]Galaxy ShopUnityn/aTouchizer [228]Game-like features, quiz questions, scores, feedback, and levels
[200]GaMbARNode.js, MySQL and HTML5n/aMobile devices and web-based environmentGame-like features, mini games, and levels
[201]n/an/an/an/an/a
[202]EduPARKUnity and VuforiaAndroidMobile devicesQuiz questions, points, and tasks
[203]Guardians of the Mo’ oARISiOSMobile devicesGame-like features, levels and tasks
[204]GreenDesignersn/an/aMobile devicesProgression, challenges, virtual rewards, badges, role-play elements, collective intelligence responses, and scene settings
[205]n/an/an/aMobile devicesQuiz questions and levels
[206]n/an/an/an/an/a
[207]n/aUnity and VuforiaAndroidMobile devicesGame-like features and objectives
[208]Ingress (Niantic)n/aAndroid and iOSMobile devicesGame-like features, badges, points, and tasks
Table
Table 4. Empirical studies: Main findings.
Table 4. Empirical studies: Main findings.
Ref.Main Findings
[81]Students found their augmented reality learning experience engaging, relevant, useful, and fun and regarded the quest completion and collaborative activities as highly motivating.
[137]The overall experience was viewed as useful, motivating, and satisfactory by students. A friendly competition was created between students and teachers to see who would obtain the highest score.
[138]By promoting exploratory behaviors, the augmented reality application provided students with learning benefits, who in turn developed positive attitudes and found the application absorbing and enjoyable.
[139]Increased learning outcomes were observed for students who used the augmented reality game.
[140]Students found the learning experience engaging and satisfactory; thus, the augmented reality application was characterized as a helpful learning tool.
[141]Students’ learning motivation increased and the teaching process was more enjoyable.
[142]Although the application might not have the same outcomes in all contexts, positive learning results were observed in students with ASD.
[143]Based on the survey responses, the augmented reality application promoted self-learning, deepened students’ knowledge, and increased their desire to learn.
[144]The experience was intrinsically satisfactory with students showcasing positive emotions, which improved their mood and increased their involvement. Students who participated in the collaborative game demonstrated greater emotional affection, interest, and social interactions.
[145]Significant differences were found between the control and experimental groups. Students who used the augmented reality application were deeply immersed in the experience and, hence, showcased improved learning outcomes, decreased negative emotions, and better flow state.
[146]Students showcased a positive attitude toward using augmented reality in learning contexts as it positively impacted their engagement and motivation. Although the novelty of the activity attracts students, the challenge of designing and implementing augmented reality in the educational process effectively still remains.
[147]The results indicated that the augmented reality application supported students’ language learning in the affective, social, and cognitive domains, and contributed to their learning outcomes. The application was regarded as satisfactory, motivational, and enjoyable.
[148]Students found the learning experience motivating and demonstrated a high acceptance level.
[149]By incorporating audiovisual elements in real time, the augmented reality application helped students gain new experiences, acquire new knowledge, and hone their skills.
[150]Students who used the augmented reality application showcased improved scores during post-tests while simultaneously the number of low performers decreased.
[151]Students spent most of their time carrying out learning tasks and demonstrated higher interactivity and engagement in co-regulation activities. Opportunities to promote and increase collaborative learning were also showcased.
[152]Students found the application motivating and easy to use, appreciated the fact that they could learn at their own pace, and developed a positive attitude toward language learning. Using multimodal material, students acquired new vocabulary in a playful manner while their vocabulary retention rate also improved.
[153]Students found the overall activity entertaining and were motivated to play the augmented reality game. After using the application, students showcased improved learning outcomes and increased retention rate.
[154]Students assessed the application as an enjoyable, intriguing, and attractive way to improve their skills at Mathematics.
[155]Students actively participated in the learning process and found the immersion element beneficial to their learning.
[156]Students found the experience satisfactory and engaging, viewed the application positively, and regarded it as an invaluable learning tool in flipped classroom contexts. A positive correlation between students’ perceptions of the augmented reality application and their learning attitude was found.
[157]Students who used the augmented reality game were more creative and focused during the learning process. Their active participation and enthusiasm increased when they noticed the existence of rewards.
[158]Students found the experience enjoyable and interesting and were able to comprehend the concept of intelligent environments and how to program their behavior.
[159]The majority of students found the application useful as it helped them comprehend the subject taught better. They also positively valued the motivating aspects, which urged them to repeat tasks and revise the material studied.
[160]Augmented reality applications can be combined with image recognition to expand their utilities, functionalities, and use cases, and to enrich the learning and teaching processes via visual objects.
[161]The gamified augmented reality application improved students’ motivation and created a relaxed learning atmosphere, which fostered collaborative learning and strengthened their willingness to discuss.
[162]Although major differences in terms of motivation were not observed between the gamified and non-gamified applications, students who used the gamified version demonstrated higher knowledge gain. Points were the determining gamification element that urged students to participate when compared to virtual badges and timers.
[163]By providing students with interactive images and information that can easily be repeated, promising learning outcomes can be yielded.
[164]Students showcased satisfactory results and enthusiasm and highlighted that the experience stood out from conventional teaching methodologies. The system was flexible, intuitive, presented clear commands, and had acceptable latency.
[165]The application was regarded as useful to the students who acquired a better comprehension of cybersecurity and learned how to stay safe online.
[166]The application performance was good and the participants showed good acceptance levels, found it useful and interesting, and quoted that it could be used as an effective supporting tool in the implementation of various teaching aims.
[167]Students demonstrated increased learning motivation and positive attitudes toward the application.
[168]Students enjoyed the overall experience while being more engaged and presenting positive emotions.
[169]The results indicated higher student motivation, participation, and learning outcomes.
[170]The application increased students’ motivation and interest in programming.
[171,172]Most university professors are acquainted with the use of augmented reality and can perform the most trivial tasks with ease. Additionally, they believe that mobile learning using augmented reality can be incorporated into education and increase students’ engagement. Small differences between genders and continents were found.
[173]Students’ task completion improved and teachers regarded the augmented reality game as helpful and useful.
[174]The majority of students enjoyed the augmented reality game experience and would be more than willing to participate in similar activities. Teachers confirmed that the application fulfilled the contents and aims of the syllabus.
[175]Students were really engaged and motivated during the learning activities. The size of the mobile device affected their collaboration.
[176]Students who used the augmented reality application performed better, were more focused, and demonstrated more positive attitudes. Technology-enhanced contextualized learning can promote and increase students’ learning attitudes and performance.
[177]Students felt a sense of satisfaction, regarded the experience as suitable for their learning needs, and achieved better learning outcomes.
[178]Students found the overall approach more engaging, motivating, and interesting in comparison to traditional approaches and exhibited better learning outcomes.
[179]Students felt more motivated while using the application particularly due to the positive reinforcement text and regarded it as fun, interesting, and intuitive.
[180]The participants viewed the application positively as it promoted their environmental awareness and improved their language learning experience.
[181]The results indicated the correlation between grit and learning achievement as well as the application positive impact on improving students’ internal factors of grit—that is hope, purpose, practice, and interest.
[182]Students’ attitude toward the application, their intention of using it, as well as its practicability and entertainment aspects were the best predictors for its effective design.
[183]The results indicated that the augmented reality game positively affected students’ learning interests and motivations.
[184]The application helped students increase their spatial reasoning skills, helped narrow the gender gap in spatial reasoning, and was mostly helpful for students with lower prior spatial reasoning performance.
[185]Students showcased great empathy with the augmented reality tool and demonstrated increased learning outcomes and better performance in comparison to traditional approaches.
[186]Students displayed improved writing skills and learning outcomes.
[187]The augmented reality approach managed to effectively engage students, draw their attention, and promote interdisciplinary subject matter learning.
[188]Students were motivated by the augmented reality tool and regarded it as a supportive tool to traditional teaching that trigger their interest and enjoyment.
[189]The augmented reality application intrigued students’ motivation and excitement and increased their collaborative learning by instilling teamwork and discussions.
[190]Students who used the augmented reality application were more engaged in the learning activity and answered questions more accurately.
[191]The augmented reality application improved students’ learning outcomes while creating a fun and entertaining environment and integrating mini games.
[192]The application supported technology-enhanced active learning and provided students with interactive visualizations in a more exciting and gratifying way. Students were more actively and passionately involved in their activities and preferred this teaching method over traditional ones as it was more efficient and intriguing.
[193]Students exhibited improved knowledge retention and learning results. Better outcomes were observed for students who played the augmented reality game more times.
[194]Students who used the augmented reality tool had better learning results and honed their writing skills.
[195]The use of gamification and augmented reality supports binary lessons and increases students’ cognitive ability.
[196]The application promoted active learning in an enjoyable manner and it was assessed as interactive and easy to use.
[197]The application offered students more personalized learning opportunities, freedom, and choices in their learning, and increased their active involvement, satisfaction, positive attitude toward learning, exercise completion rate, and grades.
[198]The specialists regarded the application as a suitable solution to engage and motivate students and increase their teamwork and communication skills.
[199]The results indicated that using augmented reality games instead of computer games engages students more effectively.
[200]The gamified augmented reality application improved students’ motivation and satisfaction.
[201]Gamified augmented reality applications meet the essential requirements to be adopted in the educational process to better engage and motivate students.
[202]Students perceived the application positively while regarding it as easy to use and enjoyable. Although negative perceptions were also found, the benefits of positive game characteristics outnumbered them.
[203]Gamified augmented reality affects the educational process positively as it creates new immersive learning environments. Students’ feedback regarding their overall learning experience was positive.
[204]When used in conjunction with gamification, augmented reality creates new learning opportunities as it constitutes an impactful learning approach for real-world and classroom settings and it enables a preparatory transition from informal learning activities to formal design-focused ones.
[205]Based on teachers’ viewpoints, personalized gamified augmented reality experiences enable students to form a deeper learning of the given subject while increasing their engagement and to improve their learning outcomes through real-time feedback.
[206]Gamified augmented reality experiences were positively viewed by students as they provide them with a sense of independence in their learning, they create more enjoyable learning environments, and can be applied to numerous courses.
[207]There are learning differences between static and dynamic augmented reality learning experiences. Although students are motivated in both cases, they perform better and achieve greater learning outcomes in dynamic augmented reality environments.
[208]Using gamified augmented reality has the potential to yield several educational benefits due to its motivational nature.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lampropoulos, G.; Keramopoulos, E.; Diamantaras, K.; Evangelidis, G. Augmented Reality and Gamification in Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Research, Applications, and Empirical Studies. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6809. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136809

AMA Style

Lampropoulos G, Keramopoulos E, Diamantaras K, Evangelidis G. Augmented Reality and Gamification in Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Research, Applications, and Empirical Studies. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(13):6809. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136809

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lampropoulos, Georgios, Euclid Keramopoulos, Konstantinos Diamantaras, and Georgios Evangelidis. 2022. "Augmented Reality and Gamification in Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Research, Applications, and Empirical Studies" Applied Sciences 12, no. 13: 6809. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136809

APA Style

Lampropoulos, G., Keramopoulos, E., Diamantaras, K., & Evangelidis, G. (2022). Augmented Reality and Gamification in Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Research, Applications, and Empirical Studies. Applied Sciences, 12(13), 6809. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136809

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop