The literature reviewed revealed that the design elements contributing to the development and implementation of gamification. For instance, Huang et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis that integrated empirical, quantitative research on game design elements in formal education settings and their effects on learner outcomes. Their findings indicate that not all gamification design elements are equal in their effects on student learning outcomes; however, well-designed instructional content should be integrated with gamification. Huang et al. criticized that gamification cannot replace insufficient instructional design and inadequate learning materials. Likewise, Dicheva et al. (2015) identified several game design elements, finding that gamification design elements can be 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. They explained that freedom to choose refers to the opportunity for learners to decide how they want to complete their tasks, while visible status informs students about the completion status of tasks. Rabah et al. (2018) reported that game design mechanics are specific features, as badges, points, and levels used in gamified learning environments. Additionally, Rebah et al. categorized game design elements in (Table 2.2).

Table 2.2: Classification of Game Design Elements (Rabah et al., 2018)

 Key concepts related to digital gamification in education are integrated into the remaining definitions and subsequent sections of this literature review.

In addition to terms and definitions related to gamification in education, the reviewed literature disclosed several key concepts and themes associated with digital gamification in education, as follows:

Gee’s (2003) qualitative study revealed that the roots of gamification in education can be traced back to the initial computer-assisted learning programs. He stated that during the 1970s and 1980s, educational software began integrating game-like features to engage learners. Gee contended that games such as "The Oregon Trail" and "Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?" introduced storytelling and problem-solving elements, establishing a foundation for immersive educational experiences.

In the 1990s, the literature reviewed demonstrate there was a significant rise in the development of educational games that combined learning with entertainment. Specifically, according to Steinkuehler and Duncan (2008), gamified learning became even more accessible with the emergence of online platforms in the early 2000s, allowing it to reach a larger audience.

Deterding et al. (2011), who conducted a qualitative study on game design elements and game-fulness, contend that the early 2010s marked the emergence of the term "gamification." They report educators began to recognize its capacity to enhance student engagement and motivation. Furthermore, they indicate applications like Duolingo and Kahoot employed game mechanics such as points, badges, and leaderboards to foster competitive yet collaborative learning environments; and they argue this shift toward gamified educational experiences transformed the delivery and interaction with educational content in classrooms. Similarly, Huang and Soman (2013), who authored a practitioner’s guide to the gamification of education assert the focus remains on creating meaningful, context-rich environments that encourage skill development and motivation, reflecting a shift toward learner-centered education.

Vorink and Valilai (2023) conducted a literature study and analysis of the potential of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies to improve the efficacy of learning processes, with a particular focus on gamification at Constructor University's School of Business. According to their analysis, the markets for augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) have advanced significantly since their inception in the 1960s, but a widespread market adaption is still some ways off from being put into practice. Additionally, their findings revealed the possibilities for education and cutting-edge communication platforms are limitless, and they will probably lead to the creation of a whole new way of life for all people. They state that the amazing potential that arises from being able to meet in person even when you are hundreds of kilometers distant will change gaming, greatly improve remote work environments, and help individuals maintain relationships. The possibilities of learning and next level communication platforms are endless and will most likely birth an entirely new way of living for humanity. The great opportunities that come with the ability to meet one another face to face while being hundreds of kilometers apart will help people keep up with relationships, enhance the remote work environment immensely and will revolutionize the gaming environment.

According to Freitas and Maharg (2016), gamification has significantly advanced in the 2020s with the incorporation of cutting-edge technologies, including virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR). They found these technologies create immersive settings that enable students to interact with content in engaging ways. They further argued that educators are now leveraging gamification not only to enhance engagement but also to customize learning experiences, tailoring them to meet individual students need.

The literature reviewed revealed that many scholars discussed the current and future direction of gamification in education. For instance, Huang and Soman (2013), who examined gamification as self-directed approach to attain instruction concepts in Indian education. Huang and Soman’s study findings identified gamification as a self-directed literacy model to establish stimulatory tasks by using modern technology, such as artificial intelligence to achieve enhanced learning and application-based adaptability of the learnt skill set. Similarly, Chen and Cheng (2021) conducted a systematic review on the effect of artificial intelligence in gamified learning environment. They found that artificial intelligence (AI) can personalize learning experiences by adjusting difficulty levels and feedback to meet individual learner needs. Likewise, Hamari and Koivisto (2022) explored the impact of AI on gamification through a literature review, aiming to study and present the nature and benefits of gamification, as well as to provide ideas for its implementation in education. They further made the claim that artificial intelligence offers personalized gamified learning environments. Hamari and Koivisto concluded that AI facilitates adaptive systems that respond to user inputs and behaviors.

Bezzina and Dingli's (2023) thematic analysis on the possible advantages of artificial intelligence in gamification revealed four primary themes; personalized feedback, gamified system prediction of user failure and/or success, dynamic difficulty changes of leveling up and advancement processes, and dynamic reward calculation depending on individual preferences and needs are some of these features. In their study, Bezzina and Dingli examined the viewpoints of two AI scientists and two game designers to expand the meaning of the term "AI-enabled gamification." The results of the 2023 research by Bezzina and Dingli show that the four experts had a positive perception of the potential application of AI in gamification in education.

Suresh et al. (2024) who investigated artificial intelligence in adaptation of gamification in education by examining 29 focused studies from a selected pool of 622 research articles. They found that “[the] advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) enables the development of dynamically adapting gamification environments with established AI techniques” (p. 1). Furthermore, Suresh et al. (2024) made the claim that research has identified the most popular gamification components, such as interaction, feedback, and rewards based on various user profile aspects and then provided strategies for merging them with different AI algorithms. However, Suresh et al. suggest that more study is required to find innovative approaches for the use of AI in adaptive gamification.

This literature reviewed revealed that many scholars studied gamified learning theory in the context of gamification in education. For instance, Zaric et al. (2021) investigated the moderating role of learning tendencies on gamification success concerning learners' academic participation, engagement, and experience. They found that the emergence of gamification as a learning theory suggests that gamification does not impact the learning process directly; however, it can stimulate learning-related performance in a controlled process. Zaric et al. asserted that a learner’s behavior can be predicted based on their learning preferences and personality. Similarly, Bíró (2014) identified the following 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), who investigated the link between serious games and the gamification of learning, 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, Bíró (2014) suggested that gamification, as a learning theory, offers several opportunities for open-mindedness among learners. For example, he claimed that gamification utilizes a community-based assessment system to encourage learners to engage in learning endeavors; it provides diversified learning paths and enhances the visual dimension of the learning process, helping learners achieve their goals (Bíró, 2014).

According to Landers et al. (2017), gamified learning theory presents a theoretical model in which game elements—derived from the literature on serious games—are used individually or in limited combinations to gamify current instructional processes with the goal of enhancing learning. They found that gamified learning theory states that, rather than directly impacting learning, gamification mediates or alters behaviors related to learning. Furthermore, Zaric et al. (2021) claim learner-related actions can be somewhat predicted based on how learners generally receive, process, and use information. Zaric et al. defines these different learning dispositions as learning styles.

Zaric et al. (2021) investigated how learning tendencies affect learners’ academic involvement, engagement, and experience in gamification. The results of their study indicated that, based on gamified learning theory, gamification design positively contributes to academic participation, affects learners’ engagement in gamified environments, and that students’ learning tendencies moderate engagement. Landers et al. (2017) summarized the relationships between gamification elements and gamified learning theory (Table 2.5).

Table 2.5 Gamification components and gamified learning theory (Landers et al., 2017)

The literature reviewed disclosed that behaviorism theory has a longstanding influence on gamified learning design. In their article, "Skinner’s Behaviorism—New Learning," published on the website Works & Days, Cope and 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 never claimed to have established it. Malone stated that in 1913, Watson was the first psychologist to identify psychology as a natural science, which has earned him the title of the father of behaviorism.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2006), who studied the educational use of video games, outlined that:

Behaviorism, which expanded rapidly during the 1950s, continues to be influential in research on educational media, including video games that concentrate on the overt and observable behaviors essential for facilitating learning. For behaviorism, learning is a matter of reinforcing the relevant stimuli and responses. (p. 190)

Moreover, Tuan et al. (2019) stated that behaviorism posits that learning takes place when a noticeable and measurable change in behavior occurs in response to provided stimuli, such as gamification mechanics and principles. Tuan et al. recognized that behaviorism is based on two core ideas: 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" (Cope & Kalantzis, n.d., para. 2).

Bíró's (2014) concluded that gamification shares more common elements with behaviorist learning theory—such as the superiority of positive reinforcement, small tasks completed step-by-step, instant feedback, and progressive challenges—than with other major concepts of gamification. The following video by Global Elite (2009) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhvaSEJtOV8&t=2s) illustrates Skinner's notion of operant conditioning and the experimental analysis of behavior (1:53).

Many scholars confirm that flow theory has strong links with gamification in education. Kaya and Eric (2023) investigated the effect of flow theory on gamification in education and found that “[a]ccording to flow theory, the flow experience is an optimal state which occurs when an individual feels deeply immersed and engaged in performing an activity in such a way that he/she would lose track of time and other external factors” (Kaya & Eric, 2023, p.10085). Chan, et al. (2019), who studied understanding the effect of gamification on learning using flow theory, found that Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi established the idea of flow theory in 1975. Chan, et al. study’s findings disclosed that when people are in a state of flow, their level of absorption and focus is at its peak. They further argued that it takes a balance between one’s perceived problems and skill level to get this ideal experience. They stated people experience anxiety when a task is too challenging for them or when they lack the necessary abilities to take on the job. Chan, et al. further argued that if an activity is too simple and doesn’t demand a lot of talent, individuals could get bored. So, accordingly, attaining the state of flow requires the right number of obstacles as well as talents (Chan, et al., 2019).

Comparably, Oliverira, et al. (2022) studied the effect of personalized gamification on students’ flow experience, motivation, and enjoyment, and they outlined:

[G]amification refers to the attempt to transform different kinds of systems to be able to better invoke positive experiences such as the flow state. However, the ability of such intervention to invoke flow state is commonly believed to depend on several moderating factors including the user’s traits.

Kaya and Eric (2023) concluded that flow theory and digital gamification in education fortified each other’s values in digital learning environments; for instance, gamified learning activities increased flow level of learners.

There are many connections between self-determination theory and gamification in education, according to Botte et al. (2020) and Kam and Umar (2018), who studied gamification in education based on self-determination theory. Kam and Umar outlined that “Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a motivational theory which distinguishes between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, which could be fostered by different incentives” (p. 4). According to Kam and Umar, gamification should be designed to influence intrinsic motivation for the learning task itself to promote genuine learning motivation. They contended that SDT is relevant to the learning and gaming environment because it explains the social conditions that may either promote or diminish intrinsic motivation through the lens of psychological needs (Kam & Umar, 2018). In a similar context, Botte et al. (2020) argued that to foster genuine learning motivation, gamification should be designed to enhance intrinsic motivation for the learning activity itself. They noted that the basic psychological needs outlined in self-determination theory can be fulfilled through playing video games, making them potential predictors of enjoyment and engagement during the gaming experience. Furthermore, the decision to begin playing a video game is typically an autonomous choice, driven by intrinsic motivation, which creates an experience that significantly differs from one initiated by force, coercion, or other external factors. This highlights a notable distinction between typical gamification and game-based training compared to video games (Botte et al., 2020). Karra et al. (2019) summarized the gamification design framework based on self-determination theory (Table 2.6).

Table 2.6 Self-determination theory (SDT) and the gamification framework (Karra et al., 2019)

Many scholars in the literature reviewed asserted goal-setting theory plays an essential role in digital gamified learning environments. For instance, Locke and Latham (2006) used an experimental design known as the 2 × 2 design; they crossed explicitly supplied speed and accuracy targets with subconsciously assigned speed and accuracy goals in a proofreading assignment. This gave them the opportunity to see what happened when conscious and subconscious goals conflicted during gamified learning endeavors. Through their investigation of goal-setting theory, Locke and Latham found:

Goal-setting theory is summarized regarding the effectiveness of specific, difficult goals; the relationship of goals to affect; the mediators of goal effects; the relation of goals to self-efficacy; and the generality of goal effects across people, tasks, countries, time spans, experimental designs, goal sources…and dependent variables (Locke & Latham, 2006, p.265).

According to Lock and Latham (2006), goal-setting theory was developed in industrial/organizational psychology during a 25-year period through inductive development employing information from more than 400 field and laboratory studies. Similarly, Fortes, et al. (2018), who investigated the principles of gamification through the lens of goal-setting theory, argued that goal-setting theory has been used for many years to explain how to motivate students to do better in tasks related to their learning objectives. They discovered that gamification has recently gained attention as an alternative tactic to increase performance and engagement in a range of contexts. The results of the Fortes, et al. study also showed that goals and feedback are frequently included in the implementations of gamified learning activities; however, they also noted that there is a dearth of literature explaining how to apply goal-setting guidelines and principles to improve gamified learning systems.

Cheng et al. (2020) concluded that students' motivation and academic learning performance are highly connected with their capacity to set goals in digitally gamified learning settings, based on the goal-setting theory; nevertheless, a lack of goal strategies may result in inferior learning performances. According to Cheng et al., for example, students who set higher targets achieve better learning outcomes than those who just put in their best effort, and students who set goals outperform those who set generic goals (Cheng et al., 2020).

Motivation theory plays a crucial role in gamification within education. As noted by Ryan and Deci (2020), it's often a concern whether individuals are as motivated as they ought to be for a task. Therefore, professionals in various fields must continually find a balance between encouraging others to increase or decrease their motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Kaplan et al. (2012) who studied motivation in education practice, asserted that motivation is defined as being motivated to act. As a result, someone who is inspired or driven to act is referred to as motivated, whereas someone who lacks motivation is referred to as uninspired. For this reason, nearly everyone who engages in play or social interactions is motivated. According to Ryan and Deci (2020), there are two types of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic.

Constructivism has been inferred in several education activities that draw on notion of gamification. For example, Tuan et al. (2019) examined learning theories related to gamification elements in instructional games and found that the social constructivism learning theory established by Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist, emphasizes that learners gain knowledge based on their prior experiences and senses.

According to descriptive qualitative research by Rohman & Fauzianti (2022) on the relationship between gamification and Vygotsky's constructivist learning theory, there are three subthemes in Vygotsky's constructivist learning theory:

1. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): This refers to a learner's potential for development between two levels of competency.
2. Scaffolding: This is a model of support provided by instructors or more knowledgeable peers to learners who are in the process of developing their competencies.
3. More Knowledgeable Other (MKO): This concept allows learners to acquire new knowledge with the help of instructors (Rohman & Fauzianti, 2022).

Aligned with this, one of the essential elements of gamification, called "level," has a crucial relation to Vygotsky’s notion of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). This gamification element enables teachers to assist students based on their individual needs and current knowledge levels (Rohman & Fauzianti, 2022). The principles of cognitive constructivism are increasingly effective in organizing classrooms and curricula, which can be applied to teaching and learning processes (Olusegun, 2015). As Gee (2005) notes, “…the mind works by storing records of actual experiences and constructing intricate patterns of connections among them” (para. 2).

Additionally, Bíró (2014) confirmed a fundamental relationship between constructivist learning theory and gamification due to the shared interaction features in both concepts. Meanwhile, "Vygotsky's constructivist philosophy requires students to use their abilities to adapt to 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, put emphasizes on learner's mental development processes—such as sensorimotor, preoperational, operational, and formal operational stages—rather than social interactions and experiences, which are key characteristics of Vygotsky’s social constructivist learning theory. Similarly, Olusegun (2015) explored cognitive constructivist learning theory in the context of evaluating gamification in education. He defined cognitive constructivist learning theory as "…an approach to teaching and learning based on the premise that cognition is the result of mental construction" (Olusegun, 2015, p. 66). Olusegun pointed out that Piaget's cognitive constructivist theory has significantly influenced educational theories and methods, with a strong emphasis on learner-centered education.

However, the literature reviewed reveals a crucial distinction between Vygotsky’s social constructivist learning theory and Piaget’s cognitive constructivist learning theory. According to Rohman and Fauziati (2022), unlike Piaget's theory—which focuses on mental processes—Vygotsky's social constructivist theory emphasizes that learning occurs because of interactions between learners and technological artifacts rather than solely through mental processes. Tuan et al. (2015) further suggest that teachers must understand learners' mental development processes and provide learning materials aligned with students' developmental levels to effectively design gamified activities.

In terms of learning—whether digital or not—Kalantzis and Cope (n.d.) conclude on their website, Works & Days, that sociocultural constructivist theory has the same shortcomings as those pointed out by Vygotsky regarding Piaget. They argue that to develop a reflective pedagogy, we must adapt several key Vygotskyan concepts to the new opportunities presented by digital learning.

Connectivism learning theory influences gamification in education in many ways. For example, Kropf (2013) who studied the relation between connectivism learning theory, e-learning and information repositories, contended that as a new learning theory of the 21st century, "[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 found evidence that connectivism is not a learning theory; rather, it is an instructional theory that supports how educational resources are developed. According to him, instructional theory is a conceptual framework grounded in learning theories and empirical data. Additionally, Bíró (2014) attempted to identify that connectivism emphasizes that learning occurs when learners make connections between fields, ideas, and concepts through the actual components of the learning process, such as listening, speaking, writing, and reading. Bíró further offered explanations for the relationship between gamification and connectivism, noting that gamification utilizes social networks to enhance learners’ interaction, connection, and engagement in gamified learning environments. “…[C]onnectivist 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” (Jayaprakash et al., 2017, p. 70). They determined that incorporating the principles of connectivism in gamified learning settings allows learners to benefit from each other’s experiences.

The literature reviewed discussed cognitivism affects gamification in education in several ways. For instance, Krath et al. (2021) examined the theoretical foundations of gamification thorough a meta-review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games, and game-based learning; in which, Krath et al. selected 118 concepts that include the domains of motivation, emotion, behavior, and learning to describe gamification in education. As a result of their study, Krath (2021) contended that cognitively difficult tasks in gamification may have negative effects on learners, such as anxiety and frustration, if gamified activities are not prepared based on cognitivist learning theory. American psychologist McLeod (2021) studied Piaget’s stages of cognitive development and claims that Jean Piaget, the developer of cognitivist learning theory, believed that cognitive growth is driven by biological factors due to 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 lasts from birth until the age of 24 months, where learning occurs through experiments, traces, and mistakes. Second is the preoperational stage, which spans from 24 months to 7 years, during which linguistic, memory, and creative skills begin to improve. Third is the concrete operational stage, which occurs from ages 7 to 11, where symbols are used rationally and methodically by linking them to tangible objects. Tuan et al. report the formal operational stage occurs from puberty to maturity, in which symbols are used to relate to theoretical ideas through logical thinking about different variables and the construction of hypotheses.

Moreover, Tuan et al. stated that every stage of cognitivism is related to some game elements and gamification principles. They clarified that two game elements are particularly relevant to Piaget's cognitivist learning theory: first, levels, which are not only related to behaviorism and constructivism but also to cognitivism; this element is linked to the mastery of learning that occurs in a sequence. Second, tasks in instructional games must be arranged according to cognitive difficulty levels that reflect specific mastery stages.

However, Kropf (2013) stated that learning through internal processes is evidence of classical cognitive learning theory. He claimed that principles of cognitivist learning theory—such as human perception, attention, learning, memory, concept formation, reasoning, judgment, decision-making, problem-solving, and language processing—enable learners to comprehend intangible lessons and make sense of their surrounding environment.

According to Tuan et al. (2019), Table 2.7 summarizes the relationships between learning theories and gamification elements.

Table 2.7: Relationships Between Learning Theories and Gamification Elements (Tuan et al., 2019)

The literature reviewed indicates that gamification plays a vital role in the Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment (Moodle). For instance, Hassan et al. (2019) investigated the effect of gamification on a dynamic learning environment, specifically within the Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment (Moodle) learning management system. They stated that students in a postgraduate course engaged in a gamified online discussion environment for eight weeks while working in groups to complete their term projects. The study utilized pre-test and post-test data from students’ online learning to assess their engagement in the gamified discussion setting. Hassan et al.’s study results indicated a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores, demonstrating that the gamified online discussion environment enhanced students' engagement for several reasons. First, according to Hasan et al. (2019), Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment (Moodle)’s flexibility and user-friendly features allow for the development of a gamified learning environment by integrating game design mechanics, such as time limitations, badges, leaderboards, discussion forums, and points. Second, Vanduhe et al. (2020) stated that Moodle has a comprehensive educational objective to gamify learning activities using an innovative gamification methodology. Next, 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 achieve their goals and interests in adopting gamification" (p. 1). Finaly, “Moodle is one of the learning management systems (LMS) that disposes of elements customized easily and simply, facilitating gamification, aiming at trainees’ active engagement” (Karra et al., 2019, p. 74). Karra et al. presented Figure 2.3 to depict gamification elements within the Moodle learning management system, aiming to improve the Moodle learning environment by including features such as level, ranking block, badges, and avatars in Moodle.

Figure 2.3: Illustration of applying Gamification mechanic elements (Karra et al., 2019)

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are another form of learning management system that tends to incorporate gamification elements as integral components. For instance, Antonaci et al. (2017) claimed that Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) frequently report very low completion rates, which have been questioned as the only relevant measure of quality. Antonaci et al. suggested that to improve achievement rates and the evaluation of goal completion in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), it is crucial to apply game elements as essential and innovative features. Khalil et al. (2018) also discussed the gamification of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) at the Open Education Global Conference in 2018, leading 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 significant benefits that could hypothetically offer progressive education to everyone for free. However, they maintained that despite Massive Open Online Courses’ potential to provide knowledge at no cost, studies indicate several underlying limitations, such as user disengagement and high dropout rates. They suggested that the application of gamification as a contemporary methodology in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is essential for improving learners' objective achievement, engagement, and performance. "The general hypothesis is that gamification fosters higher levels of engagement, participation, and motivation if applied correctly" (Reiners, 2016, p. 451). Borrás-Gené et al. (2019), who conducted a literature review on experiences of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) at the University Rey Juan Carlos with a connectivism approach, analyzed gamification's concepts of fun and motivation. Borras-Gene et al. presented Figure 2.4 to illustrate the incorporation of game elements in Massive Open Online courses (MOOCs). Through their study on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and gamification, Borrás-Gené et al. found that incorporating gamification into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) increases learners’ motivation and makes the learning environment fun and exciting.

Figure 2.4: Gamified model of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) (Borrás-Gené, 2019)

Many scholars believe that games are essential components of online simulation learning activities. Apacki (1991), for example, defined games as any activities that involve computation, social interaction, and some form of reward. These aspects are crucial in online simulation games; however, unlike simulations, games typically have winners and losers. According to Godwin-Johnes (2014), there has been a discernible increase in interest in using digital games for language learning in recent years. He conjectured that this trend aligns with the explosive growth of multiplayer online gaming and the widespread use of smartphone applications. Godwin-Johnes also highlighted educators' growing interest in linking classroom instruction to students' real-world experiences and recognizing the importance of informal, extracurricular learning.

Gee (2015), who investigated the relationship between games, the mind, and learning, argued that despite being part of popular culture, video games serve as valuable contexts for studying and exercising the human mind. He suggested that they may provide deeper insights into human thinking and learning, as well as new ways to engage learners in meaningful and immersive educational experiences. Through her dissertation on simulation in language learning, Lyu (2006) provided empirical evidence supporting the idea that games are like simulations because both are autonomous in nature. She argued that players in both activities manage their roles while adhering to the guidelines within their environments. Lyu aimed to identify the differences between simulations and games based on the degree of realism in their tasks. She claimed that games present little realism in their objectives, whereas simulations offer a more realistic experience. 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 functional realism since the characteristics of the pieces represent a greater degree of reality. For instance, the cannon in Chinese chess always moves forward while skipping one piece, which represents a real cannon’s shooting, and the elephant cannot cross the river. (Lyu, 2006, pp. 15-16)

Several scholars have investigated role-play as an essential part of online simulation games in language learning. Anchor (1978) states that, based on Huizinga’s (1872-1945) play theory, “…man is created…to be a plaything of God” (p. 63). Kikkawa et al. (2022) define role-playing as an integral part of simulation games, along with the game rules that allow players to engage in interactions, communication, and feedback. Hitchens and 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 that role-play has the potential to instigate and improve content skills, as well as the expertise needed for future success by incorporating real-world situations. 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 using players to bring the knowledge to life. He argued that, nevertheless, while 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 as:

[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) conducted a study to assess how role-playing and simulation techniques affect the oral communication skills of Malaysian Polytechnic engineering students learning English as a Second Language (ESL). The researchers used a mixed-methods approach to gather comprehensive data. The results demonstrated that students who engaged in role-playing and simulation exercises showed substantial improvement in their speaking abilities, as evidenced by significantly higher post-test scores compared to their pre-test scores. Based on these findings, the authors recommended incorporating role-playing and simulation activities into ESL curricula, highlighting their efficacy in improving students' oral communication skills. The study ultimately concluded that role-playing and simulation techniques play a positive role in improving the speaking proficiency of ESL learners.

The literature reviewed disclosed that virtual reality is another important concept in online simulation games within language learning environments. According to the University of Toronto website, “Virtual Reality, or VR, is the use of computer technology to create a simulated environment that can be explored in 360 degrees. Unlike traditional interfaces, VR places the user inside the virtual environment to provide an immersive experience” (para.1). Tyagi and Sengupta (2020) defined virtual reality (VR) as a method of making experiences more realistic by providing visual and sensory engagement facilitated by devices such as glasses and headsets.

In the TED video titled “The Future of Virtual Reality in Education”, Michael Bodekaer explains how virtual reality is used across different educational disciplines and how it works in conjunction with simulation techniques to make quality education more accessible and engaging. In the video, he emphasizes the importance of virtual reality in simulations from 1:37 to 2:25, stating that virtual reality provides valuable applications for digital simulation in education because “…too many university students around the world are bored, disengaged, and sometimes not even sure why they're learning about a topic” (Bodekaer, 2016, 1: 37 – 2:25).

Parmaxi and Demetriou (2020) investigated virtual reality as an emerging technology in language learning by analyzing 26 scholarly manuscripts from 2015 to 2018 and found that:

The 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 fostering skills and competencies not directly related to language learning but necessary for 21st-century learners, such as teamwork, autonomy, and cultural awareness. (Parmaxi & Demetriou, 2020, p. 10)

Campbell (2023) presents an example in Figure 2.10 of how virtual reality is applied in online language learning simulations. It demonstrates how a virtual space for language exchange programs can help learners practice their language skills while gaining cultural knowledge by interacting with native speakers worldwide in an immersive, realistic environment.

Figure 2.10 illustrates an example of using virtual reality in online simulations for language learning.

Augmented reality plays a crucial role in online simulation games for language acquisition. It is as a form of virtual reality in which imitative stimuli are overlaid on real objects, typically to make knowledge that is otherwise imperceptible to human senses more apparent (Coleman, 2022). Likewise, the findings of Tyagi and Sengupta’s (2020) qualitative study indicated that augmented reality (AR) is a creative way to transform a virtual realm into reality using specialized devices, such as an iPhone. They argued that AR facilitates interaction with real objects in conjunction with computer-based settings and may even assist in restoration. Parmaxi and Demetriou’s (2020) quantitative study 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 qualitative findings also identified areas worthy of future research in the application of augmented reality (AR) in language acquisition.

Chang (2018), who explored language learning through augmented reality with MondlyAR, provided a video (https://youtu.be/G6EiRObptJk?si=8HNG44igXg9VX08m) demonstrating the use of augmented reality in language learning simulations. The video shows how augmented reality, in combination with online simulations, enables language learners to learn vocabulary related to animals, birds, and other items in various languages.

James’ (2018) qualitative study on augmented reality technology and language learning found that augmented reality (AR) offers innovative methods for enhancing comprehension and engagement in language learning. After reviewing multiple studies, James found that AR has significant educational advantages, such as interactive practice, increased student motivation, and immersive experiences that facilitate contextual learning. Teachers looking to improve language instruction and enhance student achievement may find augmented reality (AR) to be a valuable technological tool (James, 2018). Similarly, Parmaxi and Demetriou (2020) identified several educational benefits of augmented reality (AR) through a review of various research studies, such as enhancing students’ immersive experiences that support contextual learning. According to Parmaxi and Demetriou (2020), augmented reality (AR) has the potential to be a powerful technological tool for educators seeking to enhance language education and improve student achievement. Parmaxi and Demetriou (2020) provided Figure 2.10 to illustrate how the count of skills is taught through augmented reality.

Figure 2.10 illustrates the count of skills taught through augmented reality (Parmaxi & Demetriou, 2020).

Scholars found that online simulation games in language learning contexts are impacted in different ways by three-dimensional realism. For example, empirical research by Franciosi et al. (2016) examined how a simple simulation game affected word memory over the long term. The findings showed that language acquisition might benefit from simulation games, and it makes sense for academics to focus on those that utilize three-dimensional (3D) virtual world technologies. They noted that, since three-dimensional (3D) visual aids provide a comical sensory experience, their appeal is understandable. Peeters (2019), who studied three-dimensional reality in the context of online simulation games for language learning, 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 that 3D virtual reality simulation games are beneficial for students because they may improve academic performance and offer educational advantages. Additionally, online simulation games can enhance students' involvement and level of engagement.

However, Franciosi et al. (2016) discovered some drawbacks to playing games with three-dimensional (3D) settings, which might be costly to implement in many educational contexts. They argued that, because simulation games based on three-dimensional (3D) reality, such as Second Life, require a stable Internet connection, they do not necessarily provide the best learning environment; in particular, anxiety caused by erratic access may have a detrimental effect on language acquisition.

Many researchers argued that the metaverse plays a significant role in online simulation games used in language learning environments. For instance, in his analysis of the concept of the metaverse in language learning, Kern (2022) provided the following explanation of the term:

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, each with an individual sense of presence and continuity of data, such as identity, history, entitlements, objects, communications, and payments. (Para. 4)

Kern (2022) also gives an example of a student who visits a library website rather than the physical location. According to Kern, in the metaverse, a person may stroll into a virtual three-dimensional (3D) library and approach the desk to ask the librarian for help, rather than just visiting the website. Second Life, a three-dimensional (3D) virtual reality platform that has been widely used by librarians, serves as an excellent illustration of a metaverse. According to Kern (2022), Figure 2.11 illustrates a Second Life library as an example of the Metaverse.

Figure 2.11: An example of a Metaverse application in education (Kern, 2022).

The results of an experimental research study conducted by Tamai et al. (2011) revealed that, compared to traditional classroom or textbook-based instruction, metaverse-based learning may be more effective in teaching language and culture. Additionally, they suggested that teaching in the metaverse is a helpful method for improving students' cultural understanding.

However, MacCallum and Parsons (2019) investigated the potential of the 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 realize the educational potential of AR in their practice” (para. 21). Chen (2021) provided the following digital image as Figure 2.12, which illustrates the metaverse as a network of real-time rendered 3D virtual worlds.

Figure 2.12: Illustrates the Metaverse as a network of 3D virtual worlds that are rendered in real time (Chen, 2021).

Goksel and Bozkurt (2019) assert that artificial intelligence (AI), which mimics human intellect through algorithmic construction, is another fundamental concept in online simulation games for language acquisition. According to Goksel and Bozkurt, extensive skill sets and competencies that were previously performed only by humans are now executed by technological devices assisted by AI. In a similar vein, Plitnchneko (2020), who examined several academic publications regarding AI in the context of online simulation games, asserted that artificial intelligence is a field of study and development aimed at creating machines designed to enhance human cognitive functions.

According to Goksel and Bozkurt's (2019) research, AI plays a significant role in people's lives, and they concluded 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 function better than humans. (Goksel & Bozkurt, 2019, p. 225)

In this brief video clip, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amfrm2V_KO0, German students encounter their first robot instructor, illustrating how artificial intelligence (AI) is being applied in education (DW Documentary., 2019).

Tyagi and Sengupta (2020) examined the connection between artificial intelligence (AI) and simulation games, finding that AI is increasingly integrated into the mechanics of both, impacting them in numerous ways. For instance, even though every student has a different learning style and set of abilities, Arora (2021) claims that artificial intelligence (AI) increases students' motivation to study by providing them with tailored learning opportunities that suit their requirements and interests. Johnson and Valente (2008) defined the Tactical Language and Culture Training System (TLCTS) as a significant example of artificial intelligence in language learning. They found evidence that it accelerates students' acquisition of conversational language and cultural skills. Johnson and Valente stated that the TLCTS uses artificial intelligence technologies in various ways, such as tracking and evaluating language learners' performance and proficiency, interpreting their actions, enabling non-player characters to respond, and facilitating interactions during the learners' speech.

This 4:32-minute video clip examines the impact of artificial intelligence on education (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nsVW6c2OQU). It also covers the use of computers to create dynamic and engaging learning environments, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to create personalized learning experiences, and the application of algorithms to provide students with feedback and support (Learning Journey YouTube Channel, 2019).

Arora (2021) claims that even though every student has a different learning style and set of abilities, artificial intelligence (AI) increases students' motivation to study by providing them with tailored learning opportunities that suit their requirements and interests. For example, Johnson and Valente (2008) who studied the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in language learning education, found that Tactical Language and Culture Training System (TLCTS) is a significant example of artificial intelligence in language learning. They found that it accelerates students' acquisition of conversational language and cultural skills. Johnson and Valente stated that the Tactical Language and Culture Training System (TLCTS) uses artificial intelligence technologies in various ways, such as tracking and evaluating language learners' performance and proficiency, interpreting their actions, enabling non-player characters to respond, and facilitating interactions during the learners' speech. Figure 2.13 below shows a screenshot from the Mission Game in the Canadian Forces version of the Tactical Pashto language program used in Afghanistan (Johnson & Valente, 2008).

Figure 2.13: An example of the function of artificial intelligence in an online simulation game for language learning is shown (Johnson & Valente, 2008).

In conclusion, the reviewed literature revealed several key concepts related to online simulation games in language acquisition, including games, virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), three-dimensional (3D) reality, the Metaverse, and artificial intelligence (AI). Scholars agree that games are integral to online simulation learning, offering rewards, social interaction, and engagement, with research indicating an increasing use of digital games for language learning (Godwin-Johnes, 2014). Role-playing within simulations is also emphasized as a valuable tool for enhancing language skills by immersing learners in real-world contexts (Abdul Rahman et al., 2018). Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are noted for their ability to create immersive, interactive environments that enhance language learning and foster essential 21st-century skills, such as teamwork and cultural awareness (Parmaxi & Demetriou, 2020). Three-dimensional virtual worlds, such as those used in simulation games, contribute to deeper learning experiences but may present practical limitations, such as cost and connectivity issues (Peeters, 2019). The Metaverse is explored as a platform that can provide highly immersive, interactive virtual spaces for language and cultural learning, though challenges related to teacher training for its effective use remain (Kern, 2022). Finally, AI is identified as a transformative technology in simulation games, offering personalized learning experiences and enhancing language acquisition through adaptive systems like the Tactical Language and Culture Training System (Arora, 2021).

The following section discusses theories related to online simulation games in language education.

Simulation theory has influenced the language learning environment in several ways. For instance, the results of research conducted by Hamad and Alnuxaili (2022) and Sydorenko et al. (2019) indicate that the concept of simulation can help students improve their speaking skills in areas such as body language, fluency, pronunciation, intonation, grammar, and vocabulary use. According to these researchers, simulation enhances speaking skills and can be employed as a teaching strategy for languages (Hamad & Alnuxaili, 2022; Sydorenko et al., 2019). They further argued that with the use of technology and smartphone apps, students can improve their language acquisition and overcome their lack of practice opportunities.

Ashcroft (2022), in his article “Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Theory: We Could Be Living Inside the Matrix,” 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. (Ashcroft, 2022, para. 1)

According to Ashcroft (2022), Figure 2.14 illustrates a simulated environment where players, acting as learners, simulate a real-life situation.

Figure 2.14: Visualizes the simulation theory (Ashcroft, 2022).

Similarly, in his dissertation, Simulation and Language Learning: Improving Communication Skills Through Simulations, Lyu (2006) found that to improve language learning communication skills, students need to be given opportunities to converse with others. Simulation is an effective way to provide sufficient occasions for students to communicate in language learning. He found that participants indeed communicate to fulfill roles and solve real-life problems within simulations.

Multiliteracies theory benefits online simulation games in language learning in several ways. For example, the multiliteracies philosophy provides a set of educationally useful conceptual representations and ideas for an expanded range of literacy, including online simulation games in language learning practices, as a response to new opportunities (Kalantzis, Cope & Cloonan, 2010). According to Hong and Hua (2020), who undertook a systematic literature review analyzing topics and trends related to multiliteracies in the classroom environment, a new understanding of multiliteracies pedagogies is crucial for teachers, educators, and students. Their study's results show that previous research has frequently considered the variety of multiliteracies that students bring to the classroom, in addition to the multimodality of meaning-making and meaning-recreating. Cope and Kalantzis (2001) argue 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 other languages of the world. (p. 11)

Comparably, Holloway and Gouthro (2022), who studied the multiliteracies approach to teaching adult second language learners in a community college, stated that “[m]ultiliteracies is a term coined by the New London Group (1996) to explore critical and creative approaches to literacy that support learners from diverse backgrounds” (para. 1). Additionally, Robertson (2012) argued that the structure of multiliteracies theory is composed of four parts: First, situational practice, which gives students the chance to study in real-world contexts with practical applications. Second, explicit instructions that foster analytical comprehension and scaffold learning are provided by teachers. Third, critical framing, in which students examine data in an unfamiliar environment to make connections between knowledge. Fourth, a practice transformation occurs when students engage in simulation games or other introspective activities based on their own ideals and aspirations.

However, Cope and Kalantzis (2021) asserted that “[t]he Multiliteracies manifesto identified six potential metalanguages—Linguistic Design, Visual Design, Audio Design, Gestural Design, Spatial Design, and Multimodal Design. These different modes of meaning were seen, of course, as increasingly interconnected” (p. 12).

Multiliteracies provide a contemporary method of teaching languages by equipping learners with technological, multimodal, and social resources. In response to these opportunities, the multiliteracies philosophy offers a collection of conceptual representations and ideas for an extended variety of literacy activities that are useful in the classroom (Kalantzis, Cope, & Coleman, 2010; Holloway & Gouthro, 2022).

In this video clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyK70HOaMDU), Mary Kalantzis discusses the role of meaning in the multiliteracies hypothesis (0:43–1:16). According to her explanation, the multiliteracies hypothesis allows students to learn through images, videos, and infographics in addition to text (Education at Illinois, 2019).

Multimedia learning theory affects online simulation games in many ways because “[a] multimedia instructional message is a communication using words and pictures that is intended to promote learning” (Mayer, 2002, p. 1). This theory was developed by Mayer, who stated, “A multimedia instructional message is a communication using words and pictures that is intended to promote learning” (Mayer, 2002, p. 1). Likewise, Ramlatchan (2019) who investigated relation between theories, research and practice, defined 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, including audio, videos, narration, simulation games, and graphics. Ramlatchan stated that multimedia learning theory explains a sequence of procedures that occur as a learner creates a new representation. This process involves: first, initial viewing and listening to instructional content, followed by the immediate storage of that information in short-term memory; next, germane resources in working memory create relationships between the visual and verbal information while recalling associated previous knowledge from long-term memory; and finally, new schemas can be generated, or existing schemas improved and stored in long-term memory. These concepts are illustrated in Figure 2.8, according to Ramlatchan (2019).

In the same vein, Rieber (2012), who investigated multimedia learning in games, simulations, and microworlds, asserted that interactive multimedia, such as games and simulations, is distinct from explanation-focused multimedia, which employs multimedia elements like text, static graphics, animations, videos, and audio in "scripted" ways. Ramlatchan (2019) stated that multimedia learning theory explains a sequence of procedures that occur as a learner creates a new representation. He asserts that this process involves: first, initial viewing and listening to instructional content, followed by the immediate storage of that information in short-term memory; next, resources in working memory create relationships between the visual and verbal information while recalling associated previous knowledge from long-term memory; and finally, new schemas can be generated, or existing schemas improved and stored in long-term memory. Reiber (2012) found that when using multimedia that focuses on explanation, one should utilize elements including text, images, animations, audio, and video. Although the user has control over these aspects. Reiber states that in games and simulations, users are subject to rules and specific interactive instructions.

Figure 2.15 shows that multimedia learning theory illustrates two cognitive processing networks—one for processing auditory information and the other for processing visual information. The result is the modification or development of new schemas in long-term memory, which serves as a perfect example of explanation-focused multimedia (Ramlatchan, 2019 & Reiber, 2012).

Figure 2.15: provides an explanation of knowledge processes based on explanation-focused multimedia (Reiber, 2012).

 Reiber (2012) also provided Figure 2.9 to illustrate interactive multimedia, such as games and simulations. As Figure 2.9 indicates, in interactive multimedia, learners have active goals and work under certain rules and instructions, such as clicking on the acceleration feature, according to Reiber.

Figure 2.16 provides an explanation of interactive multimedia (Reiber, 2012).

The literature reviewed revealed that online simulation games in language learning are grounded in social cognitive learning theory many ways. For instance, 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. They stated that the theory illustrates how both cognitive and ecological dynamics work together to influence individual learning and behavior. Obro claimed that social cognitive learning theory emphasizes learning within a social framework, allowing individuals to learn from each other’s ideas through observational learning, imitation, and modeling. Similarly, Gegenfurtner et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis of digital simulation-based training using multimedia and social cognitive theories, focusing on multimedia, social, narrative, and adaptive learning. Three key conclusions were found by the investigation's findings. First, a more comprehensive evaluation of the connection between training transfer and self-efficacy is influenced by high levels of player control. Second, providing feedback after training yielded higher estimations than either assessment during training or evaluation both during and after training. Lastly, there was no evidence of a link between social, narrative, or multimedia aspects and training transfer or self-efficacy. Obro et al. (2021) concluded that social cognitive learning theory is pertinent to language learning simulation games, as its principles are seen as essential prerequisites for effective teaching and learning. The theory offers a framework for structuring brainstorming sessions and simulation-game settings, both of which can be applied as effective teaching and learning techniques.

The literature reviewed revealed that many scholars have explored the application of experiential theory in the context of online simulation games for language learning. For instance, Sharlonova (2004), who examined the potential of experiential learning theory in Bulgarian education, argued that the experiential learning theory emphasizes that learning is a process in which knowledge is generated through the reflection on experience, is considered one of the most valuable philosophies of education. She claims that this theory provides a way to generate and analyze knowledge while it is being studied and offers valuable insights into how a course of study may be taught to produce superior learning outcomes. Sharlanova asserted that experiential learning theory encompasses the primary characteristics of active learning, such as personalized learning, learning by doing, work-based learning, and problem-based learning. She noted that the experiential learning theory can be applied to all subject areas, including language acquisition, and provides clear guidance for implementation as well as for selecting essential educational techniques.

Similarly, Rails (1995) who conducted research on simulation games and learning in production management, argued that the importance of experiential learning theory to the practice of simulation games is widely acknowledged. He stated that simulation games highlight the correlation between individual experiences and active involvement; these games offer experiences that resemble real-life practices. Rails’ study findings revealed that experiential learning theory serves as a comprehensive framework for learning, integrating experience, perception, cognition, and behavior. Pudlo’s and Gavurová's (2012) mixed-methods research about the effect of online simulation games on language learning found that experiential learning theory provides a complete model of the learning process, which aligns with how people learn, grow, and develop. They argued that educational institutions have many innovative approaches and methods, such as simulation games, that can be implemented based on experiential learning theory. Rails also asserted that this theory is valuable in many educational fields, including language education, particularly in creating simulated language learning environments where students navigate daily tasks using the target language (Rails, 1995).

Pudlo and Gavurová (2012) stated that simulation games are organized around comprehensive real-life situations, providing dynamic views of life and serving the insightful purpose of learning from real experiences. Their mixed methods research findings showed that during simulation games, each player assumes a specific role; these roles are coordinated and have distinct contributors with precise times, places, and rules that follow the essentials of experiential learning theory.

In a nutshell, experiential learning theory plays a crucial role in online simulation games in language education (Rails, 1995).

This study revealed that several studies have focused on the applications of online simulation games in education. For example, Ecke's (1998) invested the application of online simulation games in language context and found that the core characteristics of simulation games are reality, affinity, structure, and participants’ actions. He asserted that roles, based on the structure of simulation, are essential features that players perform to gain rewards or face punishments for their actions. Ecke further claimed that reality-relatedness is a crucial aspect of simulation games in language learning, where both unusual and routine events can be used to make the games engaging. He also emphasized that simulation games should be well-structured around real-life problems with challenges to provide learners with authentic experiences. Lopreiato (2016) and Franciosi et al. (2016) claimed that online simulation games in language learning often involve game attributes related to real-life situations; therefore, learners’ attitudes, motivation, and engagement are prerequisites for their active participation. This engagement offers a means of achieving desired learning outcomes, according to Leopreiato. Franciosi et al. asserted that simulation games create an environment that allows learners to experience demonstrations of real events for the purposes of practice, learning, and assessment to understand human actions. They concluded that simulations combine a modeled representation of real-life situations, such as diverse role-plays associated with actual social contexts, managed through game rules and processes. And Petersen (2009), who explored several studies on the use of digital games and simulations in language education, outlined that “…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” (Petersen, 2009, p. 1).

In conclusion, several researchers have examined online simulation games in the context of language instruction and discovered that using these games in language learning settings is an effective strategy for assisting learners in acquiring a new language. For the purposes of practice, learning, and assessment, simulation games create an environment where students may witness demonstrations of genuine occurrences (Petersen, 2009; Franciosi et al., 2016; Lopreiato, 2016).