article · Games and Culture
Gamification involves embedding game elements and principles into non-game contexts, attracting substantial interest within education. However, its adoption has encountered uneven progress, with numerous initiatives yielding failed or inconclusive outcomes. An analysis of these shortcomings in learning environments identifies four primary drivers of failure. Firstly, shallow gamification merely adds superficial elements without transforming the underlying learning experience. Secondly, the overjustification effect arises when an overreliance on extrinsic rewards undermines intrinsic motivation. Thirdly, reliance on basic mechanics, specifically badges, points, and leaderboards, constrains effectiveness. Finally, the field suffers from an overdependence on narrow explanatory models, including self-determination theory and flow theory. To counter these pitfalls, educational systems require deep gamification characterised by intentional design, more measured integration of reward-based incentives across diverse learning environments, and an expansion beyond restricted theoretical frameworks.
Gamification frequently falls short of its promise to enhance educational engagement. Pinpointing why these systems fail helps educators, instructional designers, and software creators avoid common traps. By shifting focus from superficial rewards like points and badges toward deeper, meaningful design changes, practitioners can create educational experiences that sustain intrinsic motivation and genuinely support learning objectives rather than discouraging students.
Developers of educational technology and digital learning platforms can use these insights to redesign gamified software. Rather than building simple reward loops around badges, points, and leaderboards, commercial designers can pursue deeper gamification architectures that alter core learning activities. Because this work constitutes early-stage conceptual review and design guidance, applied testing in commercial products is still required before these principles can be translated into validated market-ready tools.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Gamification is a trending topic in the scientific community. It is the art of incorporating game elements and game design principles into non-game context. The phenomenon has garnered tremendous attention especially in the field of education and academics. Yet, since it appeared a decade ago, its ascension both in education and other domains hasn’t been uniform, with several failed and inconclusive results. Consequently, scholars have, over the years, made several efforts to probe why gamification isn’t succeeding as hoped. We attempt, therefore, to contribute to this effort by reviewing and discussing some of the core reasons why gamification seems to be faltering in the field of learning and education. Our findings revealed four (4) factors why gamification could be failing. Shallow gamification which is the simplistic and surficial application of game elements on a learning system or activity without transforming the core experience is one determinant. Overjustification effect, the excessive and arbitral use of rewards (extrinsic motivators), which hampers intrinsic motivation is another success determinant. The ‘badges, points, and leaderboards (BPL) gamification’ (or BPL triad) which refers to the use of basic game elements such as the badges, points, and leaderboards is also one reason gamification is still struggling. Lastly, the overreliance on narrow models and theories to explain or design gamified experiences is identified as a factor for gamification haziness. Our study suggests several antidotes to these highlighted challenges, such as deep intentional designs that transcend surface-level implementation of game elements (what is called ‘deep gamification’). Amidst the spree of excessive extrinsic rewards anyhow, we propose a careful consideration of implementing reward-based game elements, especially in multiple learning settings. Again, a move-away from the narrow and overly used models such as the self-determination theory, and flow theory could open success pathways. As we believe, narrow theoretical lens through which gamification is often viewed serves as a limiting factor, impeding the field's progression and obscuring the full potential of gamification as an approach.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1177/15554120241228125
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
