Antonaci et al. (2017) conducted a systematic literature review involving empirical evidence of gamification application in engineering education. They found:

The first use of gamification dates back to 1912 when the American Cracker Jack, a popcorn brand, included free surprise toys in its packets as a marketing idea. The scout movement (1910) with their utilization of "ranks" as well as "badges" assigned to children or their achievements, has also been recognized as a form of gamification in education. In the academic field, the first publication on the topic of gamification can be attributed to Thomas Malone, dating back to the 1980s, however, the term gamification itself is quite recent. In 2002, Nick Pelling, a British game developer, coined and used it to describe his idea of enhancing the enjoyability and the speed of electronic transactions with game-like accelerated user interface design. (p. 1)

Likewise, in a systematic literature review about gamification concepts and themes, Rodrigues et al. (2019) analyzed 50 papers by using Leximancer software as a data analytics tool and found that the term gamification had its inception in the digital media industry, and the first paper that the gamification term was used was published in 2008; however, they stated that gamification was only applied in the education and scientific disciplines. "From a global perspective on the usage of acceptance of gamification in education, there is a big digital divide with USA, England, Spain, Netherlands, and Germany being the largest users while developing countries have no usage at all" (Surendeleg et al., 2014, p. 1614). Similarly, Lou (2022) examined 44 articles by bibliometric analysis software, Hit Cites, on educational gamification with a descriptive content analysis approach and concluded that gamification has obtained its popularity in education in the last few decades because of its perspective on improving learners' engagement, motivation, and intellectual performances.

The next section will provide definitions for the terms related to gamification in education.

Vanduhe et al. (2020) conducted a study about the Task Technology Fit (TTF), Social Influence, and Social Recognition on Teachers' Acceptance of Gamification for Training at Cyprus International University. They defined the term gamification as "…the use of game elements, game mechanics and game principles in non-game contexts, such as in education" (p.2). Correspondingly, the term gamification is defined by Robson et al. (2015) as the utilization of learning activities from the gaming realm to change learners’ behaviors in non-game settings.

Moreover, Ofosu-Ampong's (2020) study offered the Table 2.1 which indicates several definitions of the term gamification.

Table 2.1: Definitions of gamification

                                                             (Ofosu-Ampong, 2020)

Likewis, Kiryakova et al. (2018) & Rabah et al. (2018) found that games contain certain features which play crucial roles in gamified learning environments. They have defined these features as the following:

• Users which are all learners in an educational gameplay activity.
• Tasks in which learners perform and evolve toward certain goals.
• Points are numbers that are collected because of successfully completing tasks.
• Levels are certain stages of learners' ability that learners receive based on the number of collecting points.
• Badges are symbols that serve as incentives for executing tasks.
• Rankings are positions that learners achieve based on their performances.
• Rewards are incentives for winning a competition.

Antonaci et al. (2017) also defined some different terms related to gamification in education, such as feedback which is data that the gamification system sends to learners for their performances and gratitude feedback which is gratefulness that learners receive automatically from the gamified machine. Antonaci et al. state that historical feedback is back information that learners receive for their performances, and relative ranking feedback is players' information for obtaining their goals.

Tuan et al. (2019) examined learning theories for gamification elements in instructional games and found that the social constructivism learning theory, which was established by Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist, emphasizes that learners gain knowledge based on their previous knowledge experiences and senses.

According to descriptive qualitative research on the relation between the concept of gamification and Vygotsky's constructivism learning theory by Rohman & Fauzianti (2022), Vygotsky's constructivist learning theory contain three subthemes:

1. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which is a learning capability of the learner between two levels of competency development.
2. Scaffolding is a model of support provided by instructors or knowledgeable learners who have more competencies of learning than the learner who is under scaffolding processes.
3. The More Knowledge Other (MKO) allows learners to develop new knowledge with the help of instructors.

One of the essential elements of gamification is level which has a crucial relation to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) notion. The level element of gamification provides teachers the opportunity to provide help to students according to their needs and current knowledge levels (Rohman & Fauzianti, 2022). The values of cognitive constructivism are progressively effective in the organization of classrooms and curricula that can be applied to teaching and learning processes (Olusegun, 2015). Through his literature review about Gamification Learning Theory as the fifth learning theory, Bíró (2014) found evidence that the social constructivist learning theory is all about the construction of knowledge during the learning process due to interactions between the learner and a concrete situation. Supplementary, Biro confirmed that there is a fundamental relation between constructivist learning theory and gamification due to common interaction features in both notions. Meanwhile, "Vygotsky's constructivism philosophy requires students to use their abilities to adapt the demands of the development of science and technology according to their era" (Rohman & Fauziati, 2022, p. 4468).

On the other hand, Tuan et al. (2019) asserted that cognitive constructivist learning theory, which was pioneered by Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, emphasizes on learner's mental development processes, such as sensorimotor, preoperational, operational, and formal operational, instead of learners' social interactions and experiences. Similarly, Olusegun (2015) examined the cognitive constructivist learning theory in the context of evaluating gamification in education. The study led him to define the cognitive constructivist learning theory as "…an approach to teaching and learning based on the premise that cognition is the result of mental construction" (p. 66). Olusegun's findings signified that Piaget's notion of cognitive constructivist learning has had an extensive range of influence on learning theories and methods in education and that attention to learner-centered education may be the most significant influence of constructivism.

The research by Rohman and Fauziati (2022) offered a crucial distinction between Vygotsky's social constructivist learning theory and Piaget's cognitive constructivist learning theory. They claim that unlike Piaget's cognitive constructivist learning theory, which emphasizes on learners' mental processes to learn, Vygotsky's social constructivist notion emphasizes on learning which occurs as the result of interactions between learners and technology artifacts, such as gamified learning tools, not just only as the result of mental processes. Tuan et al. (2015) go on to suggest that teachers must understand learners' mental development processes and provide learning materials based on students' levels of mental development processes to design gamification activities accordingly.

In a study about connectivism as 21st-Century's new learning theory, Kropf (2013) contended that "[c]onnectivism explains how individuals use their internal processes to activate learning through a series of nodes originating from the instructor" (p. 14). However, Kropf argued that connectivism is not a learning theory, but instead, it is an instructional theory that endorses the design of learning materials. He defined the instructional theory as a conceptual framework based on empirical findings grounded in learning theories (Kropf, 2013). Additionally, Biro (2014) found that connectivism learning theory emphasizes that learning happens when learners make connections between fields, ideas, and concepts through actual living components of the learning process, such as listening, speaking, writing, and reading.

Biro proceeds to explain the relation between gamification and connectivist learning theory that gamification utilizes social networks as cores to raise the level of learners’ interaction, connection, and engagement in gamified learning environments. Comparably, at the 7th International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada, Jayaprakash et al. (2017) asserted that “…connectivist learning theory the social network is a key element of the learning process, while for gamification the network is rather a supporting drive to reach higher motivational levels” (p.70).

In their article, Skinner’s Behaviorism-New Learning published on the website Works & Days, Dr. Cope & Dr. Kalantzis, (n.d.) stated that "…Skinner (1904–90) was a leading American psychologist, Harvard professor, and proponent of the behaviorist theory of learning in which learning is a process of 'conditioning' in an environment of stimulus, reward, and punishment" (para.1).

However, according to Malone, even though John B. Watson has been credited by many scholars as the founder of behaviorist learning theory, he has never argued to have established the behaviorism learning theory. It has caused an ambiguity about the real founder of the behaviorism learning theory. Malone 2014 clarified that:

Skinner (1959) also supposed that Watson would have become a psychologist in any event. But, in the 1916 quotation, Watson did write, “medicine instead of psychology,” suggesting that he might have drastically changed the course of his life and his work. ( p. 1)

In their article, Skinner’s Behaviorism-New Learning published on the website Works & Days, Dr. William Cope & Dr. Mary Kalantzis, (n.d.) stated that "…Skinner (1904–90) was a leading American psychologist, Harvard professor, and proponent of the behaviorist theory of learning in which learning is a process of 'conditioning' in an environment of stimulus, reward, and punishment" (para.1). However, according to Malone (2014), even though John B. Watson has been credited by many scholars as the founder of behaviorist learning theory, Watson has never argued to have established the behaviorism learning theory. It has caused an ambiguity about the real founder of the behaviorism learning theory. “Skinner (1959) also supposed that Watson would have become a psychologist in any event. But, in the 1916 quotation, Watson did write, “medicine instead of psychology,” suggesting that he might have drastically changed the course of his life and his work” (Malone, p. 1). Malone also stated that in 1913, Watson was the first psychologist who pointed out psychology as natural science, and this claim has given him the credit to be the father of the behaviorism learning theory.

Moreover, Tuan et al. (2019) stated that "Behaviorism explains learning occurs when there is a behavioral change after stimuli are provided. The change of behaviors must be observable and measurable" (p. 2). Tuan et al. discoursed that behaviorism conveys learning based on two core thoughts; first, behaviors can be conditioned by offering recurrent stimuli; second, behaviors can be reinforced by the rewarded response. "The relation between a response and its consequences may be simple, and the change in probability of the response is not surprising" (Dr. Cope & Dr. Kalantzis, n.d., para. 2). A video by GlObalElite (2009) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhvaSEJtOV8&t=2s) illustrates Skinner's operant condition notion and the experimental analysis of behavior (1:53).

                                                            (Gl0balElite., 2009)

Bíró's (2014) factual findings also indicated that gamification has more common elements with the behaviorist learning theory, such as the superiority of positive reinforcements, small tasks step-by-step, instant feedback, and progressive challenges than with all the other gamification major concepts altogether.

According to Tuan et al. (2019), Table 2.2 summarizes the relations of learning theories with gamification elements.

Table 2.2: Relations of learning theories with gamification elements.

                                                                                      (Tuan, et al., 2019)

American Psychologist Mcleod (2021) studied Piaget’s stages of cognitive development and claims that Jean Piaget, who has been the developer of cognitivist learning theory, believed that cognitive growth is driven by biological factors because of individuals’ brain maturation. Mcleod argued that humans construct knowledge through their mental processes, such as thinking, memorizing, and problem-solving. Additionally, Tuan et al. (2019) found evidence that Piaget divided cognitive development into four chronological stages. First, is the sensorimotor stage which starts from birth until the age of 24 months in which learning happens through experiments, traces, and mistakes. Second is the preoperational stage which is 24 months to 7th-year old in which linguistics, memory, and creativity start to improve. Third, is the operational stage which occurs from 7 to 11 years in which symbols are operated rationally and methodically by linking to tangible things. Finally, Tuan et al. report the formal operational stage happens from puberty through maturity in which symbols are used to relate to theoretical ideas via logical thinking about different variables and the construction of assumptions. Moreover, Tuan et al. stated that every stage of cognitivism is related to some game elements and gamification principles; they made clear that two-game elements are related to Piaget's cognitivism learning theory; first, level, which is not only related to behaviorism, but it is also related to cognitivism theory; and, it is linked to mastery of learning that occurs in a sequence; second, tasks in instructional games that must be arranged according to cognitive difficulty levels that show an exact mastery stage. However, Kropf (2013) stated that learning through internal processes is evidence of the classical cognitive learning theory. She claimed that the cognitivist learning theory principles, such as human perception, attention, learning, memory, concept formation, reasoning, judgment, decision-making, problem-solving, and language processing enables learners to comprehend intangible lessons and to make sense of the environment nearby them. To express the argument of enabling learners to comprehend elusive learning materials and make sense of the world around them by the cognitivist learning theory principles, Lam (2013) illustrates in a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XwjIruMI94&t=2s at minute 3:59) a full documentary about Jean Piaget's Genetic Epistemology, and it displays some of the traditional experiments in the maintenance of drawings.

                                                             (Luis Lam, 2013)

Zaric et al. (2021), investigated the moderator role of learning tendencies on gamification success concerning learners' academic participation, engagement, and experience. They report that gamification learning theory suggests that gamification does not impact a learning process directly, however, it incites a learning-related performance in a controlling process. Zaric et al. asserted that a learner’s behavior can be expected according to the learner’s learning preference and personality. Similarly, Bíró (2014) identified the facts:

Gamification theory looks at the learning process from two different points of view at the same time, which makes it quite difficult to define the learning process in the theory. On one hand, gamification uses an individual perspective to study the advancement of learners and offer the best learning path to each of the learners based on their needs and qualities. Instead, the performance evaluation and the feedback are strongly community-based, which requires general, simple, and schematic solutions to be able to handle diverse learners in the group with a single system. (p. 149)

Lenders (2015) investigated linking serious games and gamification of learning and asserted that “[i]n the theory of gamified learning, gamification is defined as the use of game attributes… outside the context of a game to affect learning-related behaviors or attitudes” (p.1). Similarly, Biros (2014) suggested that gamification as a learning theory offers several open mindednesses for learners. For example, gamification utilizes a community-based assessment system to reinforce learners to engage in learning endeavors; it provides diversified learning paths, and it provides the visual dimension of the learning prosses which led learners to achieve their goals (Biros, 2014). The Table 2.3 illustrates the comparison of the behaviorist, cognitivist, constructivist, connectivist, and gamification learning theories.

Table 2.3: The comparison of learning theories, including gamification as a novel learning theory.

                                                               (Bíró, 2014).

Through their literature review, Rabah et al. (2018) described the concept of gamification as "…the use of game design elements characteristic for games (rather than play or playfulness) in non-game contexts" (p. 2). Similarly, Rahman et al. (2018) conducted a qualitative literature review on the Cloud-Based Gamification Model. Their research findings guided them to claim that the key objective of gamification in education is to facilitate and pass the knowledge or skills to the learners. Comparably, Surendeleg et al. (2014) acknowledged that gamification is a concept that intends to aggravate users' participation and engagement with a system, while education is a field with a high prospective for the application of this conception.

Vanduhe et al. (2020) studied gamification qualifications which led them to find crucial qualifications of gamification, such as increasing learners' collaboration, engagement, participation, motivation, rising learners' task promise, pleasure, obtaining problem-solving abilities, and critical thinking skills; however, Hung (2017) found that “[g]amification overlaps with other game-related educational interventions, including game-based learning, serious games, and learning by design, each of which values different aspects of games and tends to approach games and learning from different points of departure” (p. 57).

Wiggins (2016) examined the use of both game-based learning (GBL) and gamification in post-secondary education through surveys to understand instructors' familiarity with game-based learning and gamification concepts. As a result of her study, she outlined the concept of game-based learning (GBL) as the "…intentional use of digital or non-digital games or simulations for the purpose of fulfilling one or more specific learning objectives" (p.19).

Pivee et al.’s (2003) study tangible findings revealed that game-based learning has been extensively implemented for children's education. They found evidence that academically highly appreciated products of game-based learning tools are on the market and have a confirmed achievement in the development of education as well as in children's endorsement.

Meanwhile, Wiggins (2016) voiced a concern that several studies have used the concept of gamification and game-based learning synonymously, however, they are different concepts. She clarified that gamification is the process in which learners use the thoughts and mechanics behind the game activities for conflict solving and learners’ engagement while the concept of game-based learning is the use of the game machines to fulfill learning objectives. Similarly, Al- Azawi et al. (2016), who conducted a comparative study about gamification and game-based learning concepts, confirmed that "[g]amification is turning the learning process as a whole into a game, while game-based learning (GBL) is using a game as part of the learning process" (p. 134).

Nonetheless, Wiggins (2016) turned his attention to distinguishing the concepts of game-based learning and gamification. Wiggins concluded that game-based learning is the use of games in the classroom to improve learning and teaching, however, gamification refers to utilizing game-design elements, such as rewards, leaderboards, badges, levels, and prizes, in non-game contexts. Comparably, Al-Azawi et al. (2016) found that game-based learning (GBL) has the potential to inspire learners to participate in learning endeavors while the gamified learning process is more stimulating by providing fun to learning activities.

According to Al-Azawi et al., the undermentioned table (Table 2.4) provides a concise differentiation between gamification and game-based learning concepts.

Table 2.4: A comparative analysis of gamification and game-based learning

                                               (Al-Azawi, 2016).

Dicheva et al. (2015) explained that game design elements, as a crucial concept of gamification in education, are divided into two types, game design principles, and mechanics. They stated that game design principles are standards that guide games, such as social engagement, freedom to choose, and visible status. Dicheva et al. posit that social engagement nourishes the maintained need for competition against team members or teams. They explained that freedom to choose refers to having the opportunity to choose the way learners want to complete their tasks, and visible status informs students about a task's completion status. Rabah et al. (2018) reported that the game design mechanics are certain features that are used in gamified learning environments and offered the Table 2.5 to categorize game design elements.

Table 2.5: Game design elements classification as game design principles and game design mechanics

                                                         (Rabah, et al., 2018).

Huang, et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis that integrated the empirical, quantitative research on game design elements in formal education settings on leaner learning outcomes. Their empirical research findings indicate that not all gamification design elements are equal in their effects on student learning outcomes, however well-designed instructional content should be applied in performance with gamification. Huang et al. asserted gamification cannot replace insufficient instructional designs and inadequate learning materials.

Al-Azawi et al. (2016) explained that games are “…systems that involve interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a computer or a video device to utilize fun, play, and competition” (p. 132). Eliasa (2014), from Yogyakarta State University, Yogyakarta, Colombo, conducted a literature review about the values of students' teamwork and responsibility through games. Her factual study’s findings revealed several explanations for the concept of games related to gamification in education. She emphasized that "…to play games is a kind of human adaptation which is useful to help children control their anxiousness and conflict" (p. 199). Relatively, Pederson et al. (2020) explained Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs), as an essential example of educational games. They stated that Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) were introduced, as a potential educational tool, in the 1990s. Pederson et al. asserted that Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) encourage learners to learn knowledge in an active and fun way. Pederson et al. clarified that these games provide learners with collaboration, engagement, and motivation in the classroom.

Additionaly, Eliasa (2014) clarified that Piaget argued playing games can support the cognitive development of learners, as the cognitive development of learners is impacted by interactions while they are playing the games; and she concluded that:

Games are thought to be an effective method as it contains many values which are meaningful for their players. The meaning can be felt directly by the players, but the new players may realize the reflective form after receiving feedback from another member. This way, it adds knowledge on how important other people are to an individual as an educator... Values can be built and improved by employing integrated games in the lectures. The materials of games are planned and designed correctly, so they contain meaningful values for the players. (p. 202)

Jason Jewik (2017) in his TEDx Talk video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ62vVhuQVw) asserted that “… more than 90% of educators believe that games can be a powerful motivational tool for education” (8:40).

(Jason Jewik, 2017).

According to Kiryakova et al.’s (2014) literature review findings, serious games are games designed for a particular objective related to training, not just for fun, and they are like games, however, they have focused on a predetermined goal. Landers et al. (2015) examined relations between psychological theories and gamification of learning and found that gamification is different from serious games in which their initial goal is learning rather than fun while gamification is the integration of game elements, such as objectives, rules, and real-life feedback in-game activities. Similarly, Laamarti et al. (2014), who conducted an overview of serious games by reviewing several surveys about serious games, summarized the application and history of serious games in the Table 2.6.

Table 2.6: Milestones in the history of serious games

(Laamarti, et al., 2014).

Zeng et al. (2019) stated that “[e]ducational games can create an attractive learning environment for students, make learning more interesting, and enable students to learn by doing, thus improving students' high-level abilities” (p. 1). Correspondingly, Laamarti et al. (2014) found several examples of serious games, such as the Middle Kingdom which is a good example of language acquisition that help learners to learn a second language, IBM INNOV8 which is a city’s transportation building simulation game introduced in 2010, and finally, Data games which are games that permit learners to learn from real-world data, such puzzles.

Laamarti et al. (2014) provided enormous guidelines for successful serious games in education, such as collaboration in playing educational games which refers to multiple players' exercise games, designing games for the class in which the designer takes into consideration the related curriculum, and finally, linking commercial games with educational games. Laamarti et al. asserted that the field of serious games has exponentially developed recently, however, balancing between fun and the main objective of serious games which is enhancing learning should be taken into consideration seriously.

Kiryakova et al. (2014) argued that the notion of game-inspired design is the use of thoughts and paths of thinking which are an integral part of games. Kiryakova et al. clarified that game-inspired design does not indicate additional game elements to game activities, however, it inspires designers to use gamification thought in lively game designs.

“In September 2010, Obama launched the National STEM Game Design Competition at the White House, aiming to mobilize the younger generation of American interest in STEM by designing video games and encouraging students to apply what they have learned to innovate practices” (Zeng et al. (2019, p. 189). Similarly, in a literature review about game-inspired design, Aguilar et al. (2015) reviewed several empirical research papers to find empirical evidence in support of gamified learning environments in undergraduate courses in a school of education, at the University of Michigan. In their study, they considered game-inspired design as "game-full approaches in education have broad potential to reframe formal education, encouraging student engagement, as our findings indicate, and ultimately leading to deeper and better learning" (p. 67).

Savonin (2019) investigated gamification and simulation learning software along with their benefits, risks, and examples. He defined the term simulation as "… a game-based learning approach, which recreates real-life scenarios by animating or re-enacting them" (para.5). Relatedly, through their literature review, Laamarti et al. (2014) found that in 1981, a simulation tool known as The Bradley Trainer was developed for the American army to train plebes in how to operate a Bradley tank.

Comparably, Savonin (2019) found evidence that simulation has many similarities with gamification and serious games; he offered explanations for those connections and similarities and stated that simulations involve gamification concepts, such as freedom to make mistakes, freedom to fail without penalties, practices, and repetitions, and collections of accomplishments and prizes. However, he also claims that unlike games, simulations must include certain elements, such as realistic and organized Step-by-step tasks, multiple possible outcomes, technical accuracies, and high reliabilities. Likewise, Kiryakova et al. (2014) contend that simulations are like serious games, but they simulate real-world scenarios, and their purpose is users' training in an environment resembling real life.

Zeng et al. (2019), examined simulation in education, and stated that:

The closer the situation is to the real environment, the easier it is for learners to transfer and apply knowledge. In order to provide learners with a more realistic interactive environment and a better learning experience, technologies such as 3D and augmented reality are gradually becoming widely used in the construction of immersive virtual game environments, enhancing the immersion of educational games. 3D technology can simulate the same learning environment as the real-life environment and the application environment. This can solve the problem of knowledge transfer and adapting situational knowledge that is not easily taught by ordinary teaching methods. (p. 188)

Hasan et al. (2019) conducted exploratory method literature review about a gamified collaborative environment in Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment (MOODLE) on Management Information System (MIS) courses at a university in the northern part of Cyprus-Turkey. Hasan et al. found that Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment (MOODLE)’s flexibility and user-friendly features provide the ability to develop a gamified learning environment in Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment (MOODLE) by integrating of game elements such as time limitations, badges, leaderboards, discussion forums, and points.

Comparably, Vanduhe et al. (2020) stated that among other learning management systems, Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment (MOODLE) has a complete educational objective to gamify learning activities by using an innovative gamification methodology. Vanduhe et al. argued that "[b]ecause Moodle provides a free interactive online gamification platform, it will be easy for other institutions to use Moodle to follow their goals and interests in adopting gamification" (p. 1).

Antonaci et al. (2017) claimed that Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) frequently warned about their quite low accomplishment rates, which have already been doubted as the only relevant gauging of quality. They suggested that to improve achievement rates and the evaluation of goal completion of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), it is crucial to apply game elements as essential and innovative game features to Massive Open Online Courses MOOCs. Similarly, Khalil et al. (2018) discussed the gamification of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) at Open Education Global Conference in 2018 which led them to concur that:

A Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) is a type of online learning environment that has the potential to increase students' access to education. However, the low completion rates in MOOCs suggest that student engagement and progression in the courses are problematic. Following the increasing adoption of gamification in education, gamification can also be effectively adopted in MOOCs to enhance students' motivation and increase completion rates. (Khalil et al., 2018, p. 17)

Antonaci et al. (2017) also reported that the Internet has provided Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) with huge benefits that could hypothetically provide progressive education to everybody for free; Antonaci et al. maintained their claim that even though Massive Open Online Courses have the potential to provide knowledge for free, studies about Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have several underlined limitations, such as users' disengagement and their high dropout rates. They suggested that the application of gamification as a contemporary methodology in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is essential to improve learners' objective achievement, engagement, and performance. Reiners (2016) claimed that "[t]he general hypothesis is that gamification fosters higher levels of engagement, participation, and motivation if applied correctly" (p. 451).

Borrás-Gené et al. (2019), who conducted a literature review about experiences of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) at the University Rey Juan Carlos with a connectvist approach by analyzing gamification's fun and motivation concepts, offered the Figure 2.1 to illustrate the incorporation of game elements in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).

Figure 2.1: Gamified model of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).

                                                         (Borrás-Gené, 2019).

Hellerstedt and Mozelius (2019) research paper indicated that the implementation of simulation games in education settings goes back ages ago in history. They revealed that mathematics, mixed skills, and rationale, for example, were taught and trained with board games, such as Chess and Mancala. They found that Chess, an Asian roots game, has been played in numerous ways for thousands of years, and the Kalaha game, an African board game, was played in Egypt as early as the period between 1500 to 1150 Before Christ (BC). Similarly, in an article about the history educational games, Caud (n.d) offered a brief timeline of online educational games, including simulation games from 1970 to 2020 in the United States. Caud stated the online educational game of Logo was created by Seymour Papert and Wally Fuerzeeig in 1970 to help learners learn math and programming. Caud asserted the Logo game was also a coding language that taught beginner students coding, and it was created at the University of California, Berkeley. Caud asserted that Tycoons were simulation games that aimed to teach children about business, economics, history, and a range of real-life skills. Likewise, Lee and Malone (2018) stated that “Educational games, which can be online games and ‘offline’ games such as card games and board games were introduced in the early 1990s” (p. 1).

Zin, N., & Yue, W. (2009) reported at the 2009 international conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics 5-7 August 2009 that the yearly income of the online game industry in the United States was $15 billion. They asserted that the game-playing population falls between the ages of 10-34 years old with most of the people between 14-19 years old. 43% of game players were from the age of 19-25 years old. According to Caud (n.d.), the following timeline shows a brief timeline of online educational games from 1970 to 2020.

Figure 1: A brief timeline of online educational games from 1970 -2020 (Caud, N., n.d.).

 The next section examines the terms and their definitions which were discovered by the reviewed literature.

Apacki (1991) discovered that games are any activities that involve computation, social interaction, and some form of prize would be considered in games which are like simulations, however, games, usually, have losers and winners dislike simulations. Through her dissertation about Simulation in Language Learning, Lyu (2006) provided empirical evidence to support the idea that games are like simulations because both games and simulations are autonomous in nature. She argued that players in both activities oversee their roles accepting the guidelines within their environment. Lyu attempted to identify that the dissimilarity between simulations and games is on the characterized level of reality of tasks. She claimed that games present slight or almost no reality of duties whereas simulations offer reality, for instance:

[I]n western chess, the castle moves, the bishop is powerful, the queen is more powerful than the king, and the king is the most vulnerable piece. However, in reality, a castle cannot move, a bishop may be powerful in politics but not in a war, a queen has less power than the king, and a king is the most powerful person in the kingdom. There is no clear-cut divide between simulations and games in this matter; rather it is a continuum. Comparing western chess to Chinese chess, the latter has more reality of function since the characteristics of the pieces represent a greater degree of reality of function. For instance, the cannon, in Chinese chess, always moves forward skipping one piece, which represents a real cannon’s shooting, and the elephant cannot cross the river. Games like Monopoly or Risk present more reality of function than chess games. The more reality of function that is represented, the more the activities are likely to be simulations. Simulations always present a very high degree of reality of function, otherwise, they are not simulations. (p. 15-16)

Hitchens & Drachen (2009), Daniau (2005), Salen and Zimmerman (2004), Lortrz (1979), and Clapper (2010) all investigated simulation and role play. They found that role-play is one of the crucial types of simulation games that allows students to become engaged in learning activities; they argued it has the potential to instigate and improve content skills as well as the expertise needed for future success by incorporating real-world situations. However, Clapper found evidence that simulation engages participants in a very real learning experience that closely resembles a real-life situation. He claimed that these actual situations may be simulated by either hiring prototypes in the case of role-playing, or the use of players to bring the knowledge to life. He argued that nevertheless, while the simulation is becoming more dominant among other disciplines for aggregate understanding and skill building, the education discipline has not fully embraced this strategy. In his book “Homo Ludens 2.0, The Ludic Turn in Media Theory,” Raessens (2020) quoted Huizinga’s (1955) definition of play:

Play is a free activity standing quite consciously outside ‘ordinary life’ as being ‘not meant’, but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained from it. It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It promotes the formation of social groupings. (Huizinga 1955, p. 13)

Likewise, Abdul Rahman et al. (2018) investigated the effect of role-playing and simulation methods on Malaysian Polytechnic engineering students’ English as a second language (ESL) oral communication skills. Their qualitative and quantitative study’s findings indicated that the students in the role-play and simulation group had performed better in the post-test compared to the pre-test after the exposure to the role-play and simulation method in language learning oral communication skills classes. Abdul Rahman et al. argued proved in favor of a combination of role-play and simulation games that role-play and simulation methodologies can assist as possible strategies to advance language learners’ oral communication skills. Their study findings revealed that role-play and simulation methods have positive impacts on improving oral communication skills among Malaysian Polytechnic engineering learners.

Tyagi & Sengupta (2020) defined Virtual reality (VR) as a method of making things more truthful by providing a visual and sensory involvement that is handled by an individual through apparatus like glasses and headsets.
In the TED video file (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF5-aDJOr6U&t=1s), Michael Bodekaer explains how virtual reality is used in different educational disciplines, and how it works with simulation techniques together to make quality education more accessible and fun. In the video, he explains at 1:37 to 2:25 that “…too many universities around the world, students that are bored disengaged and sometimes not even sure why they're learning about a topic” (Michael Bodekaer, 2016).

Parmaxi & Demetriou (2020) investigated Virtual Reality as an emerging technology in language learning by delineating 26 scholarly manuscripts from 2015-2018 and found that:

Potential benefits indicated in the VR corpus, in terms of learning and skills improvement, were synthesized. It was noted that virtual reality provides ample opportunities for supporting language learning and teaching, as well as for supporting skills and competencies not directly related to language learning but necessary for 21st century learners such as teamwork, autonomy, and cultural awareness. (p. 10)

The main findings from Parmaxi & Demetriou's (2020) systemic “review demonstrate the popularity of mobile-based AR for supporting vocabulary (23.9%), reading (12.7%), speaking (9.9%) writing (8.5%) or generic language skills (9.9%)” (p. 1).

Augmented reality is a kind of virtual reality in which imitation stimuli are overlaid on real objects, typically to make Knowledge that is otherwise imperceptible to human senses obvious (Coleman, 2022).
Tyagi & Sengupta (2020) claimed that augmented reality (AR) is a very creative way to game or just imitate a virtual realm into actuality through the utilization of a special kit, such as an iPhone. They argued that it helps in interaction with real objects for cooperating with computer-based settings and may even help in restoration. Similarly, Parmaxi and Demetriou’s (2020) study findings demonstrated that the popularity of using mobile-based augmented reality (AR) for supporting vocabulary is 23.9%, for reading is 12.7%, for speaking is 9.9%, for writing is 8.5%, and for generic language skills is 9.9%. Their study findings also discovered zones that are worth future studies in the application of augmented reality (AR) in language acquisition.
According to Barney & Sheldon (2022), the following digital image illustrates a worker at an electronics company wearing augmented reality equipment to use an augmented training application.

 In his book “Advances in Global Education and Research,” James (2018) claimed that “AR technology is paving its own way to make an innovation in language teaching and learning. Thorough scrutiny of a body of selected studies has suggested that AR has numerous educational advantages in language teaching and learning” (p. 67).

Figure: 4 illustrates the count of skills taught through augmented reality (Parmaxi & Demetriou, 2020).

Franciosi et al.’s (2016) empirical study about the effect of a simple simulation game on long-term vocabulary retention indicated that simulation games appear to be possibly helpful as language-learning media, and researchers may naturally focus attention on games employing three-dimensional (3D) virtual world technology. They asserted that the magnetism of three-dimensional (3D) illustrative technology is comprehensible in that it bids an amusing sensory involvement. Peeters (2019) claimed that:

Benefits of using virtual reality as an experimental method include that in a virtual environment, as in the real world, there is no artificial spatial divide between participant and stimulus. Moreover, virtual reality experiments do not necessarily have to include a repetitive trial structure or an unnatural experimental task. (p. 894)

Pellas et al. (2017) concluded the benefit of the 3D virtual reality simulation games for learners "The vast majority of educational benefits and potential enhanced the degree of their engagement and participation, contributing positively to their achievements" (p.2235).

On the other hand, Franciosi et al. (2016) found that there are some disadvantages to using games with three-dimensional (3D) settings based on working complexity which could prove expensive to adopt in many educational situations. They claimed that simulation games using three-dimensional (3D) reality like Second Life, which depend on an internet server, do not essentially provide the best learning experience because they entail a stable Internet connection; specifically, anxiety due to unstable access might negatively affect language learning.

Kern (2022) studied metaverse in language learning and defined the term metaverse as the following:

The Metaverse is a massively scaled and interoperable network of real-time rendered 3D virtual worlds that can be experienced synchronously and persistently by an effectively unlimited number of users with an individual sense of presence and with continuity of data, such as identity, history, entitlements, objects, communications, and payments. (Para. 4)

Chen (2021) provided the following digital image which illustrates Metaverse.

 Kern (2022) provided an example of a student who currently goes to the library website instead of going to the actual library. Kern says that in the metaverse, instead of going to the website, he/she might walk his/her avatar into a virtual three-dimensional (3D) library and goes to the desk to ask the librarian for assistance. Librarians have been at the forefront of using three-dimensional (3D) virtual reality, specifically Second Life, and it has been a great example of a metaverse.

According to Kern (2022), the following image illustrates a Second Life library and an example of Metaverse.

 Tamai et al.’s (2011) experiential study findings suggested that metaverse-based learning could be efficient in learning language and culture compared with the conventional way of learning in textbooks or traditional classrooms. They also recommended that the way of learning by teaching in the metaverse is useful to endorse the awareness of culture for learners. However, MacCallum & Parsons (2019) investigated the potential of Metaverse for learning and found that “…even experienced teachers tended to focus on content rather than on how AR can help students learn. There is therefore a need to provide suitable professional development to teachers of all levels of experience if they are to fully realis the educational potential of AR in their practice” (para. 21).

Artificial intelligence (AI) imitates human intelligence by an algorithmic construction; in fact, enormous skills and competencies once were uniquely done by humans, and they are now being done by Artificial intelligence (AI) supported technology devices (Goksel & Bozkurt, 2019). “Artificial Intelligence is a branch of science producing and studying the machines aimed at the stimulation of human intelligence processes” (Plitnichenko, 2020, para. 2).

Empirical findings of the current literature review revealed that:

There have been mind-blowing developments in the evolution of AI and the remarkable role it has played in human lives. Recently, there have been some concrete examples of AI being capable of learning how to think like a human. These examples have even demonstrated that AI-based applications, in some cases, can even function as better as humans. (Goksel & Bozkurt, 2019, p.225)

The short video file (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amfrm2V_KO0) serves as an example of artificial intelligence (AI) application in education in which Germany's students meet their first robot lecturer (DW Documentary., 20219).

Tyagi & Sengupta (2020) investigated the relationship between simulation games and artificial intelligence (AI) and asserted that:

The mechanism of simulation and gaming go hand in hand where artificial intelligence has been coming in clutch to be related to these two in all the aspects we can think of. All the possibilities for the AI in simulation have been discussed along with gaming while learning about the problems we face when trying to pester AI in applications. (p. 2)

The following 4:32 minutes video file (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nsVW6c2OQU) explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the educational landscape. It also discusses how artificial intelligence (AI) is being used to create personalized learning experiences, how algorithms are being used to provide feedback and support to students, and how computers are being used to create dynamic and engaging learning environments (Learning Journey YouTube Channel., 2019).

Similarly, Arora (2021) asserted that while every single student has a different learning style and grasping abilities, artificial intelligence (AI) provides learners with personalized learning opportunities to meet their needs and interests; and it increases learners’ motivation in learning. Johnson and Valente (2008) contributed a conference paper that introduced the Tactical Language and Culture Training System (TLCTS) which is a crucial example of artificial intelligence in language learning. Johnson and Valente found evidence that it assists learners in quickly obtaining communicative skills in languages and cultures. They asserted that Tactical Language and Culture Training System (TLCTS) uses artificial intelligence technologies in numerous ways, such as throughout the learner's speech, interpreting learner actions, powering the reaction of non-player characters, and gauging and evaluating learners’ language performance and proficiency.
The below digital image shows a screenshot from the Mission Game in the Canadian Forces version of the Tactical Pashto language in Afghanistan (Johnson and Valente, 2008).

The literature reviewed disclosed that several studies focused on the applications of online simulation games in learning education. For example, Ecke's (1998) study findings indicated that the core characteristics of simulation games are a reality, affinity, structure, and participants’ acting. He asserted roles, based on the structure of simulation, are essential features of simulation games that players perform to gain rewards or punishments for their actions. Ecke claimed that reality-relatedness is a crucial part of simulation games in language learning endeavors in which unusual and routine events can be used to make the simulation games interesting. He also emphasized that simulation games should be well-structured around real-life problems with challenges to provide learners with real-life experiences. Similarly, Lopreiato, (2016) stated that online simulation games in language learning usually involve game attributions in real-life situations. Franciosi et al. (2016) and Ecke (1918) also asserted that learners’ attitudes, motivation, and animation are prerequisites for their active participation in online simulation games to offer a means of accomplishing desired learning outcomes. They believe simulation games generate an environment that lets learners experience a demonstration of a real event for the purposefulness of practice, learning, and assessment to understand human actions. They argued that simulations combine a simulated model of a real-life situation, such as diverse role-plays associated with the real-life social situation managed by game rules and processes. Petersen (2009), who explored several studies on the use of digital games and simulations in language education, stated that in a nutshell, “…simulations and games present valuable opportunities for effective language learning. The contemporary literature on theories of language acquisition hypothesizes that simulations and games are beneficial methods for helping learners acquire another language” (p. 1).

Ashcroft (2022), who contributed an article “Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Theory: We Could Be Living Inside the Matrix” about simulation theory, stated that:

In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom introduced his famous “simulation theory” in which he explores the probability that we are all living inside an artificial simulation. Bostrom discusses how a future society could become so technologically advanced that its inhabitants learn how to generate complex artificial worlds using powerful computers. If this is possible, then the probability that we are living inside a computer simulation, Matrix-style, is extremely high. ( Para, 1)

Koul (2017) investigated simulation theory (ST) and believed that simulation theory (ST) in comparison to theory-theory (TT) rejects the notion that learners use a specific idea to comprehend individual thoughts; however, individuals conceptually simulate the example set by others. Based on simulation theory (ST), to cognize other people's minds, we use our own intellectual resources and answer the question of what we would have done if we were in other people’s positions.
In his dissertation about simulation and language learning: improving communication skills through simulations, Lyu (2006) noted that to improve language learning communication skills, students need to be offered opportunities to converse with others; to do so, simulation is a great way to offer sufficient occasions for students to communicate in language learning. He found that participants indeed communicate to fulfill the role and solve real-life problems in simulations. Koul (2017) asserted that the simulation theory (ST) account is opposed to having a comprehensive automatic rule or a notion about the people around us; however, the simulation theory (ST) has been categorized as knowledge-poor mind reading as it does not require a huge set of data as is essential through theory-theory (TT). Koul, 2017 & Roska-Hardy, 2002 provided an example of the concept of the simulation they said to contemplate the situation where you are playing a football match and see your rival pass the ball in the reverse direction of the goal. Your search for an imaginable clarification as to why the player might have done it this way. While you are investigating the situation, you will discover from your rival's perception that no one of his team members has closed the goal. Upon simulating how you would have acted in such an incident, you reach the elucidation that it would have been better to pass the ball in the opposed direction which harmonized with the executed performance. In this example, you use your own intellectual properties to understand others’ intent based on the postulation that they would be like yours.
Similarly, Roska-Hardy (2002) also investigated both simulation theory (ST) and theory-theory (TT) and discovered that:

Theory-theory claims that we possess a folk psychological ability that rests upon knowledge of a theory. Just like other folk theories, such as folk physics, it enables us to master our daily lives successfully. Although we use this theory constantly throughout the whole day, we are not actually aware of the laws of which the theory is composed. The theory, therefore, is of implicit and tacit nature. (p.11)

Multiliteracies philosophy grants a set of educationally useable conceptual representations and ideas for an expanded range of literacy practices as a response to these opportunities (Kalantzis, Cope & Cloonan (2010).

In their book,Transformations in Language and Learning: Perspectives on Multiliteracies, Cope and Kalantzis (2001) stated in September 1994 some of the world’s honored educators in the field of literacy pedagogy were invited for a week in the town of New Landon, New Hampshire to discuss the future of literacy teaching and find answers to the following questions: What would need to be taught in a rapidly changing near future, and how it be taught. They asserted that their outcomes of discussion were in a nutshell of Multiliteracies, the word that they coined to explain essential quarrels, such as first, the growing significance of cultural and linguistic diversity, and second, the influence of new communications technology in the concept of multiliteracies. They stated that the meeting concluded that:

Meaning is made in ways that are increasingly multimodal-in which written-linguistic modes of meaning are part and parcel of visual, audio, and spatial patterns of meaning…These two developments have the potential to transform both the substance and pedagogy of literacy teaching not only in English but also in the other language of the world. (Cope & Kalantzis, 2001, p. 11)

Robertson (2012) also provided empirical evidence that the framework of the multiliteracies theory is grounded in four segments, such as situated practice which allows learners to learn in authentic situations with practical application; overt instructions in which instructors scaffold learning and encourage analytical understanding; critical framing in which learners analyses information in unfamiliar context to link understanding; and transformed practice in which learners engage in reflective practice derivative of personal goals and values, such simulation games. However, Cope and Kalantzis (2021) asserted that “[t]he Multiliteracies manifesto identified six potential metalanguage-Linguistic Design, Visual Design, Audio Design, Gestural Design, Spatial Design, and Multimodal Design. These different modes of meaning were seen, of course, as being increasingly interested” (p.12).

Holloway and Gouthro (2022) argued that multiliteracies offer a modern approach to language learning that composes sociocultural, multimodal, and technological resources for language learners. Multiliteracies philosophy grants a set of educationally useable conceptual representations and ideas for an expanded range of literacy practices as a response to these opportunities (Kalantzis, Cope, & Cloonan (2010).

In the video file (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyK70HOaMDU) (0:43-1:16) Dr. Mary Kalantzish talks about the functions of meaning in the multiliteracies theory. She explains that the multiliteracies theory gives learners the opportunity to learn not only from the text, but also learn from pictures, video files, and infographics (Education at Illinois., 2019).

Multimedia learning theory was developed by Mayer who stated that “A multimedia instructional message is a communication using words and pictures that is intended to promote learning” (2002, p. 1).

In the book Instructional Message Design: Theory, Research, and Practice, Ramlatchan (2019) defined the multimedia learning theory as “…the use of multiple simultaneous techniques and instructional message design, such as combining narration and visuals in a presentation” (p. 3). He asserted that multimedia learning theory emphasizes multiple presentation approaches to deliver epistemological information, such as audio, videos, narration, simulation games, and graphics. Ramlatchan stated that multimedia learning theory explains a sequence of procedures that are taking place as a learner is making a new representation, such as first, initial viewing, listening to instructional content, and the immediate storage of that information in short-term memory; next, the remaining germane resources in working memory create relationships between the visual and verbal information and recalls associated previous knowledge from long-term memory; and finally, new schema can be generated, or current schema improved and stored in long-term memory. “A multimedia instructional message is a communication using words and pictures that are intended to promote learning” (Mayer, 2002, p. 1). Similarly, Rieber (2012), who contributed a chapter in the book Multimedia Learning in Games, Simulations, and Microworlds, claimed that simulation games are examples of interactive multimedia.
Figure 3: Multimedia learning theory explains two cognitive processing networks available to students, one for processing auditory information and the other for processing visual information, and the result is the modification or development of new schemata in long-term memory  

The reviewed literature revealed that online simulation games in language learning are grounded on Albert Bandura’s (1999) social cognitive learning theory. Obro et al. (2021), who studied effective social studies pedagogy, argued that social cognitive learning theory emphasizes the significance of observation and modeling in the actions, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others. She argued that the theory illustrates how both cognitive and ecological dynamics cooperate to affect individual learning and behavior. Obro claimed that social cognitive learning theory emphasizes learning within a social framework to learn from each other’s ideas through observational learning, imitation, and modeling.

Likewise, Gegenfurtner et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis of digital simulation-based training based on social and multimedia cognitive theories in which they focus on social, narrative, adaptivity, and multimedia learning. Their study’s findings highlighted three core results. First, high levels of player control affect the higher estimation of the association between self-efficacy and transfer of training. Second, providing assessment feedback after training produced higher estimates than evaluation during training or providing assessment both during and after training. Third, the estimation between self-efficacy and transfer of training was unaffected by social, narrative, or multimedia characteristics.

Obro (2021) further disclosed that the social cognitive learning theory is relevant to simulation games in language learning because its intentions are considered necessary requirements for practical teaching and learning. He asserted that the theory provided the theoretical foundation for organizing simulation-game environments and developing brainstorming, which can be utilized as practical teaching and learning strategies. Obro emphasized that based on social cognitive learning theory, online simulation games boost students’ learning outcomes as they actively build their knowledge through imitation, modeling, observation, and interactions with different brainstorming exercises.

Sharlanova (2004) stated that the experiential learning theory is one of the most admirable educational theories which emphasized learning is a process, in which knowledge is created throughout the renovation of experience. She stated the theory presents a way of constructing and deconstructing knowledge during the study and provides a concrete understanding of how a course of study can be taught to have better learning outcomes. Sharlanova claimed that experiential learning theory confirms all main aspects of active learning, such as personalized learning, learning by doing, work-based learning, and problem-based learning. She delineated that the experiential learning theory offers ready instructions for application, gives guidelines for the essential range of essential assortment of education approaches, and can be used in all subject areas, including language learning.

Likewise, in his book Simulation Games and Learning in Production Management, Rails (1995) argued that the importance of experiential learning theory to the practice and theory of simulation games is widely acknowledged. He stated simulation games highlighted the correlation of individual experiences through involvement. Simulation games are ways to get experiences that resemble the practice in real life. Rails’ study findings disclosed that the experiential learning theory is implicit as an all-inclusive perception of learning that collectives experience, perception, cognition, and behavior. Rails asserted that the experiential theory is useful in many educational fields including language education. Pudlo and Gavurová's (2012) mixed-methods research findings showed that the experiential learning theory provides a full example of the learning process, which is consistent with how people learn, grow, and develop. They argued that education institutions have many innovative approaches and methods, such as simulation games which can be used based on experiential learning theory. Pudlo and Gavurova stated that simulation games are organized in comprehensive real-life situations which provide dynamic views of life, and they exist for the insightful purpose of learning about real experiences. Pudlo and Gavurova’s research findings showed that during playing simulation games, each player has a single role. Roles are more coordinated and have a distinct set of contributors with precise times, places, and rules which follow experiential learning theory essentials. Konhonen (2014) claimed that the teacher’s autobiographical knowledge functions as the base for how the teacher understands his or her experience, the uniqueness of human learning, and foreign language” (p. 6).