Introduction

The emergence of modern technological applications and their adoption in educational settings have challenged the effectiveness of traditional educational systems, approaches, and methodologies to meet the new educational and societal requirements and satisfy students’ demands for more active, engaging, and insightful learning (de Castro & García-Peñalvo, 2022; DiLullo et al., 2011). In the context of Education 4.0, the adoption and integration of technology-enhanced learning are imperative (Bayne, 2014; Hussin, 2018). As the integration of novel technologies and applications in the education process becomes more common, ineffective practices and approaches are being substituted (Hughes et al., 2006; Zawacki-Richter & Latchem, 2018).

To provide high quality education, the educational processes should adapt to the needs of digital native students and take their habits, knowledge, personality traits, competences, and interests into account (Prensky, 2001; Robinson et al., 2013). Additionally, when students play an active role in teaching and learning activities and participate more eagerly and willingly, improved learning outcomes can be yielded (Rupp et al., 2019). The use of Extended Reality (XR) technologies in education is gaining ground as they can satisfy the new educational demands and students’ requirements (Lampropoulos et al., 2022). Due to their interactive and immersive nature, XR technologies can assist in developing new pedagogical approaches, lead to more meaningful learning, promote lifelong learning, and create learning environments that students find more enjoyable, intriguing, motivating, and engaging (Beck, 2019; Calvet et al., 2019). XR technologies are composed of Mixed Reality (MR), Virtual Reality (VR), and Augmented Reality (AR) with VR being closer to the virtual environment while AR closer to the physical environment (Milgram & Kishino, 1994). These technologies provide users with a sense of immersion and aim at creating an MR in which the simultaneous existence of both real and digital objects is feasible, the human sense perceptions are substituted with ones that are created by computers, and the borders between the perceived virtual and real environments become blurred (Schmalstieg et al., 2002; Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016; Suh & Prophet, 2018). Additionally, gamification is a novel approach that can be combined with XR technologies to enrich and improve the teaching and learning activities (Lampropoulos et al., 2022). Gamification can transform traditional education by incorporating game mechanisms and elements into its processes to create more absorbing, fun, motivating, and interesting learning environments and experiences that promote inclusion and student-centered learning (Majuri et al., 2018; Nah et al., 2014; Pozo-Sánchez et al., 2022).

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic the educational domain had to address the new demands that were brought about by the digitalization of everyday life through adopting and incorporating new approaches, methods, and technological applications as well as transforming and enriching teaching and learning activities (Burbules & Callister, 2018). This fact was further amplified due to the pandemic (Ratten & Jones, 2021). Both gamification and virtual reality share a number of similarities which enable them to be used in conjunction. Particularly, the integration of gamified virtual reality learning environments in educational settings can offer various benefits. Their use can potentially help meet the new educational demands, enrich the educational process, improve learning achievements, and assist toward the materialization of the digital transformation of education.

Despite the interest and the studies regarding the educational use of virtual reality and gamification being increased (Martí-Parreño et al., 2016; Rojas-Sánchez et al., 2022; Swacha, 2021), little is known about their impact and effectiveness when they are combined. Therefore, this study aims at examining the use of gamified virtual reality learning environments through a systematic literature review. Specifically, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed and no limitations were set regarding the educational level, subject, and publication year. The below-mentioned research questions (RQ), which are based on the study of Lampropoulos et al. (2022), have been set to be explored and answered:

  • RQ1: What benefits are brought about when incorporating virtual reality and gamification into the educational process?

  • RQ2: How are the related studies distributed among empirical studies, proposal and prototype papers as well as review, conceptual, and theoretical articles?

  • RQ3: Which are the countries which conducted the most studies related to the topic?

  • RQ4: What is the distribution and frequency of publications throughout the years?

  • RQ5: What are the main findings of the related studies?

  • RQ6: Which is the educational level that more widely adopted the use of virtual reality and gamification?

  • RQ7: What most studies focus on regarding students’ development?

  • RQ8: What is the most commonly used sample in the related studies?

  • RQ9: Which are the main objectives and aims of the related studies?

  • RQ10: What are the main areas, topics and subjects the use of virtual reality and gamification is more widely studied and applied in?

  • RQ11: Which instruments, research methods and categories, variables, and measures are mostly used to examine the given topic?

  • RQ12: Which development tools, methodologies, and operating systems are mostly used to develop gamified virtual reality applications for educational purposes?

  • RQ13: Which are the most commonly used devices to carry out the experiments?

  • RQ14: What degrees of freedom (dof) and representation are used within the gamified virtual reality applications in education?

  • RQ15: Which are the most widely used gamification mechanisms and elements in gamified virtual reality applications in education?

  • RQ16: Do the main findings of the different types of studies examined lead to the same conclusions?

Virtual reality in education

Virtual reality aims at immersing users in real or virtual environments and experiences which perceptually surround them and are generated through computational units to simulate their physical presence within them (Lampropoulos et al., 2020). More specifically, virtual reality is mainly characterized by the elements of interaction, immersion, immediacy, involvement, and presence (Freina & Ott, 2015; Psotka, 1995; Ryan, 2015; Sherman & Craig, 2003), uses computational systems to create “all-inclusive, sensory illusion of being present in another environment” (Biocca & Delaney, 1995, p. 63), and capitalizes on social and psychological aspects and processes to make users perceive these virtual environments and experiences as real (Blascovich & Bailenson, 2011).

The interdisciplinary nature of virtual reality, which arises from the field of computer science, allows it to be applied in several domains (Rashid et al., 2021), including education in which it is gaining more ground as an immersive, interactive, and useful teaching and learning tool (Hu-Au & Lee, 2017; Martín-Gutiérrez et al., 2017; Radianti et al., 2020), as it contributes toward more engaging (Annetta et al., 2009) and meaningful learning (Huang et al., 2010). The recent advances and the lower cost of digital devices and equipment have facilitated the adoption of virtual reality even further (Olmos et al., 2018).

Virtual reality impacts students’ affective domain, social interactions, and learning outcomes (Hew & Cheung, 2010). Additionally, it can be used in educational settings in a variety of ways, such as face-to-face, distance, and blended learning, as it creates safe, immersive, and unique environments that support various teaching and learning styles, increase involvement and motivation, and enable real-time communication and interaction between educators and learners even in cases in which traditional learning would not have been feasible (Bronack et al., 2006; Dalgarno et al., 2011; Dickey, 2005; Fan et al., 2015; Freina & Ott, 2015; Han, 2020). Within these safe, interactive, and controlled environments, students experience experiential learning and practice complicated and demanding tasks to develop their cognitive skills (Çaliskan, 2011; Hamilton et al., 2021).

Moreover, as virtual reality promotes autonomous decision-making (Martí-Parreño et al., 2016a) and enables the representation of abstract concepts in a tangible manner, it enhances the overall learning process (Persky & McBride, 2009). Specifically, virtual reality improves students’ motivation (Garris et al., 2002), interactivity, and active participation (Roussou, 2004) and enhances knowledge acquisition and retention for the students who adapt better at kinesthetic, visual or auditory learning (Leite et al., 2010). When combined with experiential and project-based learning, virtual reality can boost students’ soft skills, communication capabilities and academic performance, enhance their critical and reflective thinking and knowledge dissemination and increase their psychomotor, cognitive, and social-emotional skills development and enjoyment (Araiza-Alba et al., 2021; Halabi, 2020; Jensen & Konradsen, 2018).

By embodying design principles that capitalize on gesture, voice, and hand controls (Johnson-Glenberg, 2018) in virtual environments, allowing students to interact with multimedia lessons and acquire knowledge easily and intuitively (Parong & Mayer, 2018) and combining various instructional techniques, the overall educational effectiveness and experience can be enhanced and applied in several educational levels, contexts, and subjects (Bowman et al., 1999). As a result, and due to the immersiveness and interactivity that virtual reality offers, it can lead to increased learning outcomes when compared to only instructor led teaching (Bailenson et al., 2008; Bowman et al., 2009; Webster, 2016). Despite this fact, teachers’ role is crucial in order for immersive technologies to be effectively applied within educational settings. Virtual reality enriches teacher education programs and provides future learning opportunities (Billingsley et al., 2019). Specifically, virtual reality can help fill in the gaps of training pre-service teachers by exposing them to various teaching and learning experiences and environments and enabling them to practice and hone their skills in fully controlled and safe environments (Christensen et al., 2011).

Several recent systematic literature review, overview, scientific mapping, meta-analysis, and bibliometric studies have examined the use of virtual reality in different educational levels and contexts (Cheng et al., 2022; Freina & Ott, 2015; Kavanagh et al., 2017; Luo et al., 2021; Radianti et al., 2020; Rojas-Sánchez et al., 2022; Villena-Taranilla et al., 2022) as well as the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in educational activities (Jensen & Konradsen, 2018). Virtual reality can bring about positive learning behaviors and attitudes and through the hands-on experiences it offers, it supports effective learning experiences in both K-12 and higher education contexts (Natale et al., 2020) as it creates new opportunities to enrich students’ learning, support diverse teaching approaches and enhance students’ stimuli and motivation (Araiza-Alba et al., 2022). Consequently, virtual reality can be effectively applied in numerous educational settings and subjects (Merchant et al., 2014), such as science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (STEAM) (Birt & Cowling, 2017), chemistry (Edwards et al., 2019; Jiménez, 2019), physics (Bogusevschi et al., 2020), biology (Lee et al., 2010), mathematics (Kaufmann et al., 2000), geometry (Kaufmann & Schmalstieg, 2006), geography (Šašinka et al., 2018), language learning (Blyth, 2018), environmental science (Markowitz et al., 2018), geology (Klippel et al., 2019), engineering (Abulrub et al., 2011; Halabi, 2020), communication skills (Shorey et al., 2020), medical and healthcare (Pears et al., 2020; Yiannakopoulou et al., 2015), nursing and midwifery (Fealy et al., 2019), vocational designing (Kim et al., 2020), etc.

Gamification in education

Gamification can be applied in several contexts and has become a multidisciplinary field of study (Nacke & Deterding, 2017). Gamification is related to gameful experiences, gamefulness, and games in general, and it integrates the game elements, mechanisms, and principles that lead to games being fun, challenging, interesting, and engrossing into contexts that are not related to games to improve end-users’ engagement, motivation, and experience (Deterding, 2012; Deterding et al., 2011; Seaborn & Fels, 2015). As active methodologies are at the core of gamification and since game designs and theories capitalize on the psychological theoretical backgrounds of learning, the adoption and incorporation of gamification in educational settings to improve students’ learning outcomes, engagement, and experiences was anticipated. (Bai et al., 2020; Cechetti et al., 2019; Landers, 2014). Due to its nature, gamification can make the learning experience more interactive and entertaining and enhance students’ interest in the learning subjects, their involvement, self-efficacy, engagement, focus, and motivation and encourage them to achieve better academic outcomes (Bouchrika et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2017; Yildirim, 2017). The motivational elements of gamification can result in desired student behaviors and enhanced psychological states (Hamari et al., 2014; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Palomino et al., 2019).

Recent studies have gone over the merits, challenges, and limitations of adopting and integrating gamification in education (de Borges et al., 2014; Dicheva et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2020; Majuri et al., 2018; Manzano-León et al., 2021; Martí-Parreño et al., 2016; Nadi-Ravandi & Batooli, 2022; Nah et al., 2014; Sailer & Homner, 2019; Subhash & Cudney, 2018; Swacha, 2021). Gamification is an effective didactic approach that enriches the traditional education process and can bring about new potentials owing to its ability to be used in conjunction with other approaches and technologies (O’Donovan, 2012; Sanchez et al., 2011). Due to the benefits gamification could bring in education, studies have been conducted across all educational levels and in several subjects (Lampropoulos et al., 2022). Many studies have put emphasis on science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (STEAM) related subjects (López et al., 2021; Ortiz et al., 2016), such as physics (Rose et al., 2016), chemistry (Chans & Castro, 2021; Mellor et al., 2018), mathematics (Jagušt et al., 2018; Lo & Hew, 2018), geometry (Kamalodeen et al., 2021), and astronomy (Barringer et al., 2018). Other studies have focused on natural science (Rivas et al., 2019), environmental science (Jung, 2017; Ouariachi et al., 2020), and geography (Mahat et al., 2021). Particular interest has been shown in medical and healthcare education (Ang et al., 2018; McCoy et al., 2016; Nevin et al., 2014; Sandrone & Carlson, 2021), history and cultural heritage education (Bonacini & Giaccone, 2021; Moseikina et al., 2022), and language learning (Dehganzadeh & Dehganzadeh, 2020; Dehghanzadeh et al., 2019). Gamification has also brought about positive learning outcomes in music education (Gomes et al., 2014), sports and physical education (Fernandez-Rio et al., 2020; Ferriz-Valero et al., 2020) as well as vocational education (Jayalath & Esichaikul, 2020).

Methodology

After having analyzed the theoretical background of this study, it is important to present the methodology used. As this is a systematic literature review, it is essential for all the steps followed and choices made to be clearly displayed and analyzed to ensure the reproducibility of the process and results. Hence, this section presents the research design followed and goes over the literature review process.

Research design

A systematic literature review following the PRISMA statement (Page et al., 2021) was conducted to address the aims of this study and the aforementioned research questions. This approach was selected due to the scope and nature of the specific study as it examined empirical studies, proposal and prototype papers, as well as review, conceptual and theoretical articles. Due to its high standards, its rigorous rules, and its being successfully implemented and validated in diverse contexts and topics, the well-established PRISMA statement was adopted (Higgins et al., 2019; Liberati, 2009; Webster & Watson, 2002).

A thorough combination of keywords and five databases, that is ERIC, Google Scholar, IEEE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science (WoS), were used to retrieve related to the topic documents. The databases which had the most related and accurate documents were SCOPUS and WoS which further justifies their being considered as highly impactful scientific databases (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2015; Zhu & Liu, 2020).

Systematic literature review process

Aiming at covering the literature around this interdisciplinary topic, a thorough search formula was used which involved studies of all educational levels, types, and subjects throughout the years. As a result, the following query which integrates logical operators and wildcards was utilized: “(‘virtual reality’ OR ‘vr’) AND (‘gamif*’) AND (‘college*’ OR ‘education*’ OR ‘learn*’ OR ‘pupil*’ OR ‘school*’ OR ‘student*’ OR ‘teach*’ OR ‘universit*’)”. The query searched in the title, abstract, and keywords parameters (topic) of the related documents of the ERIC, IEEE, SCOPUS, and WoS databases. In the case of Google Scholar, the operator “allintitle” was used in combination with the keywords in succession (e.g., ‘virtual reality’ AND ‘gamification’ AND ‘college,’ ‘virtual reality’ AND ‘gamified’ AND ‘students’, etc.).

Figure 1 depicts the whole process and steps taken which adhered to and followed the PRISMA statement guidelines and rules. A total of 950 related documents were initially reported in the five databases (21 in ERIC, 39 in Google Scholar, 157 in IEEE, 492 in SCOPUS, and 241 in WoS) on 1st of August 2022. Of these documents, 270 duplicates were identified and removed. Therefore, a total of 680 documents were screened. To minimize subjective judgments, inclusion criteria were established by both authors. More specifically, the main inclusion criteria set were for each study: (i) to use virtual reality and gamification elements in conjunction; (ii) to refer to education or educational contexts; and (iii) to involve either an empirical study, the development of an educational application, a proposal or prototype, a systematic review, overview, or theoretical contributions. Both researchers of this study have independently screened the 680 documents based on the inclusion criteria set and focusing on the title, abstract, and keywords of the documents. After having completed this process, the researchers compared their results and resolved any disagreements through consensus between them. This process was selected to improve the reliability of the review and the outcomes.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of the PRISMA statement

Full size image

Following this process, 530 documents were not included in the study as they did not conform to the research criteria. The remaining 150 documents were sought for retrieval and except for 5, the rest (145) were successfully retrieved. The eligibility of the remaining 145 documents was examined. Specifically, the researchers reviewed the method section of each study to further verify it meeting the inclusion criteria and the purposes of this study. Due to their not complying with the research criteria set, 33 more documents were eliminated. As a result, this review involves and examines 112 studies. An objective data extraction form was used. The specific kind of form was selected to minimize the threat of missing relevant information and of subjective interpretation. Additionally, the form was used by both researchers and the extracted information was cross-validated.

These specific studies were grouped into the following categories: (1) Empirical studies (66 articles, 58.93%); (2) Proposal and prototype papers (design-oriented without being applied in educational contexts) (31 articles, 27.68%); and (3) Review, conceptual and theoretical articles (15 articles, 13.39%) (RQ2). The area of focus, aims, suggestions, and main findings of the proposal and prototype articles were looked into. The review, conceptual, and theoretical articles were examined and their main findings were analyzed and presented. Finally, for the empirical studies, the following variables were identified and analyzed: (1) Country of experiment conduct; (2) Educational level; (3) Area of focus; (4) Developmental category; (5) Sample; (6) Main aims; (7) Research methodology; (8) MMAT category; (9) Main variables; (10) Measurement - Research instruments and tools; 11) Measures; 12) Application name; 13) Application development methodology; 14) Development tools; 15) Operating system; 16) Devices used in the experiment; 17) Degrees of freedom (DoF); 18) Representations; 19) Gamification elements; and 20) Main findings.

It is worth noting that due to the nature of this study, studies that adopt qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches are included within the Empirical studies category. Therefore, to further examine the studies included in this systematic review and more rigorously evaluate their quality, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) systematic assessment tool was used (Hong et al., 2018). This particular tool includes methodological criteria and five core quality criteria for each of the five categories in which it divides Empirical studies based on their study design. These categories are: (i) Qualitative, (ii) Randomized controlled, (iii) Non-randomized, (iv) Quantitative descriptive, and (v) Mixed methods (Hong et al., 2018).

Results

To analyze the data, a mixed-method research approach was followed (Creswell & Clark, 2017). The results are categorized into empirical studies (Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4), proposal and prototype papers (Table 5), and review, conceptual, and theoretical articles (Table 6). Figure 2 presents the countries in which the experiment and/or the study were conducted as well as the frequency of each type of study.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Countries in which the experiments/studies were conducted

Full size image
Table 1 Empirical studies: General information
Full size table
Table 2 Empirical studies: Research methods, variables, and tools
Full size table
Table 3 Empirical studies: Application development information and gamification elements
Full size table
Table 4 Empirical studies: Main findings
Full size table
Table 5 Proposal and prototype papers
Full size table
Table 6 Review, conceptual and theoretical articles
Full size table

The complete results of the countries in which the studies took place are displayed in Fig. 2, both as the total number of published documents and based on their categories. Spain, Germany, the United States, Peru, and the United Kingdom were the countries that conducted most empirical studies. The countries that mostly contributed with proposal and suggestion papers were: Greece, Germany, Brazil, Malaysia, and Romania. Portugal and the United Kingdom were the two countries that contributed the most with review, conceptual, and theoretical articles. When taking all types of studies into consideration, Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, Greece, and the United States were the countries that conducted the most studies on the use of gamification and virtual reality in education (RQ3). The publication frequency and type of study of each year are depicted in Fig. 3. The years 2019, 2020, and 2022 were the ones with the highest numbers of related publications (RQ4).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Annual number of publications

Full size image

Due to the volume of studies explored and the variables analyzed, the data is grouped and presented into four tables. Table 1 displays the empirical study basic information (e.g., country, educational level, area of focus, developmental category, sample, and aims). The information related to the research approach (e.g., research method, main variables, and measurement-research tools) is presented in Table 2. The information concerning the developed application or system as well as the gamification mechanisms used (e.g., application name, development tools, operating system, device, and gamification elements) is depicted in Table 3. It must be mentioned that in Table 3 when there is only the indication “game-like features and mechanisms” in a study, it refers to the fact that a virtual reality game that entails gamification aspects was used but the specific gamification elements identified in other studies were not implicitly mentioned in the text or shown within the figures of the corresponding studies. Nonetheless, based on the inclusion criteria and scope of this study, such studies are deemed appropriate for inclusion as they combine virtual reality with gamification and are applied in educational settings. Finally, the main findings of each study are presented in Table 4 (RQ5).

Several observations can be made based on the aforementioned information. Higher education (71.21%) was by far the educational level that most studies focused on, followed by secondary education (10.61%). Primary education (4.55%) and K-12 (3.03%) had fewer related studies. In total, 7 studies (10.61%) did not specify a particular age group or educational level. Figure 4 presents the information related to the educational level that the studies focused on (RQ6). As shown in Fig. 5 (RQ7), increasing student cognitive development (93.94%) was the main focus of the experiments while fewer studies put emphasis on student cognitive and social-emotional development (4.55%) and physical development (1.52%).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Empirical studies: Educational levels

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Empirical studies: Developmental categories

Full size image

Furthermore, the experiment sample consisted mostly of students, but there were also studies that explored the attitude, experience, and views of teachers (RQ8). The goal of most studies was to provide students with an interactive, fun, and interesting learning environment to improve their learning experience and outcomes and enhance their engagement and motivation (RQ9). The main area of focus of the empirical studies was STEAM-related fields (e.g., physics, chemistry, computer science, arts, mathematics), followed by medical and healthcare education, language learning, and engineering (RQ10).

Based on Table 2, most studies adopted a quantitative research approach (63.64%), followed by mixed-method approach (24.24%) and qualitative approach (12.12%). The variation of methods used assists in acquiring collective insights to improve user experience (UX) (Nielsen, 2000). Figure 6 presents the related to the research methodology information (RQ11). Moreover, the research approach of the studies was further examined using the MMAT. Particularly, most studies adopted a Quantitative descriptive approach (39.39%), followed by mixed methods (Qualitative and Quantitative descriptive) approach (16.67%), Randomized controlled approach (13.64%), Qualitative approach (12.12%), and Non-randomized approach (10.61%). The Mixed methods (Qualitative and Randomized controlled) (4.55%) and Mixed methods (Qualitative and Non-randomized) (3.03%) approaches were also used but to a lesser extent. The relevant to the MMAT category information is showcased in Fig. 7 (RQ11). Several validated in the educational context questionnaires were used. Some examples of those are: the System Usability Scale (SUS) (Brooke, 1996), the Presence Questionnaire (Witmer & Singer, 1998), the Game Engagement Questionnaire (GEQ) (Brockmyer et al., 2009), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1993), the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (Kennedy et al., 1993), the NASA task load index (Hart & Staveland, 1988), the Presence Questionnaire (PQ) and the Immersive Tendencies Questionnaire (ITQ) (Witmer & Singer, 1998), the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) (Lewis, 2002), the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) (Laugwitz et al., 2008), the Immersion and Presence Questionnaire (IPQ) (Schubert et al., 2001), the Virtual Reality Sickness Questionnaire (VRSQ) (Kim et al., 2018), the Use, Satisfaction, Ease to use (USE) questionnaire (Lund, 2001), and the Questionnaire to Assess Current Motivation in Learning Situations (CQM) (Rheinberg et al., 2001). Beyond the use of already validated questionnaires, most studies implemented ad hoc questionnaires or surveys. There were also studies, such as (Chávez et al., 2020; Chiang, 2021; Falah et al., 2021; Makransky et al., 2019; May & Denecke, 2020; Palmas et al., 2021), which adopted items from existing evaluation tools (RQ11). Most of the studies used student related variables, such as experience, acceptance, motivation, performance, satisfaction, feedback, and viewpoints (RQ11). Additionally, given the tools used, the variables analyzed, and the participants, the measures of each study were divided into objective, subjective, or both. The measures of the vast majority of the studies were subjective (68.18%), followed by objective and subjective (21.21%), and objective (10.61%). The related to the measures information is depicted in Fig. 8.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Empirical studies: Research methods

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Empirical studies: MMAT category

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Empirical studies: Types of measures

Full size image

It was obvious that there was a clear lack of detailed descriptions regarding the development approaches, processes, and tools used as well as of a display of examples of the application and the experiments. Additionally, the paucity of technical information and of provision of resources and repositories was apparent. Design-based research methodology (Ahlers et al., 2022; Rosmansyah et al., 2019), collaborative design (Wilson et al., 2017a), user-centered approach (Wilson et al., 2017b), and instructional design approach (Vagg et al., 2016) were some examples of the methodologies and approaches used to develop the educational applications. Most studies used Windows as the operating system of their application (56.06%), followed by android (12.12%), while some studies developed cross-platform applications (12.12%). A significant number of studies did not report a specific operating system (27.27%) or devices used (12.12%) (RQ12). Furthermore, the HTC Vive head-mounted devices were mostly used to conduct the experiments (37.88%), followed by general purpose head-mounted devices (27.27%), and the Oculus Rift (13.64%). Figure 9 presents the information related to the application operating system while Fig. 10 depicts the frequency of the devices used during the experiments. Although several studies did not specify the Software Development Kit (SDK) that they used, based on those which did, Unity was by far the most commonly used SDK (56.06%), followed by Unreal Engine 4 (9.09%), Oculus Rift Development Kit (9.09), and Google VR SDK (6.06%) (RQ13). To further analyze and understand the specifications and nature of the gamified virtual reality applications used in education, their DoF and their representation of content were examined. The vast majority of applications used 6-DoF (62.12%), followed by 3-DoF (37.88%) as it can also be seen in Fig. 11 (RQ14). Additionally, the overwhelming majority of applications used immersive virtual reality content and environments (92.42%) while only a few used 360-degree content (7.58%). The representations used in the applications examined are presented in Fig. 12 (RQ14). Regarding gamification elements, the use of game-like features and mechanisms was widely adopted and elements, such as points and scores, tasks and quests, quiz questions, virtual achievements and rewards, difficulty levels, feedback, mini-games, and leaderboards were integrated within the educational applications (RQ15).

Fig. 9
figure 9

Empirical studies: Operating systems

Full size image
Fig. 10
figure 10

Empirical studies: Devices used

Full size image
Fig. 11
figure 11

Empirical studies: Devices used

Full size image
Fig. 12
figure 12

Empirical studies: Devices used

Full size image

The main findings of the related empirical studies are presented in Table 4. Most results revealed positive learning outcomes and acceptance by the educational community. More details and comments on the results are listed in the summary and discussion sections.

Information regarding the proposal and prototype studies are presented in Table 5. Based on the results, most studies focused on higher education (74.19%), followed by K-12 (12.90). Some studies (12.90%) did not specify the educational level or age group that their proposed application was aiming at (Fig. 13). In this category of studies, there was no study that was targeting at primary or secondary education. STEM-related fields, medical and healthcare education, and engineering were the main focus areas of these studies (RQ10). Finally, the aims and main findings of the review, conceptual and theoretical articles are presented in Table 6.

Fig. 13
figure 13

Proposal and prototype papers: Educational levels

Full size image

Summary of the results and main findings

When taking into consideration the findings of the studies analyzed, it can be concluded that the use of gamification and virtual reality, as well as their combination in education can affect the educational process positively and yield benefits for both teachers and students (RQ16). To answer RQ1, the conclusions, results, and findings of the related studies were summarized. In the context of this study, the educational benefits that can be yielded through the use of gamified virtual reality refer to the aspects that render teaching and learning more effective, the new educational opportunities that arise, the positive learning outcomes, the elements that lead to the cognitive, social-emotional, and physical development of students, as well as the aspects that result in students’ personal development and well-being. The integration of gamification and virtual reality in education can support technology-enhanced learning and the transformation of traditional education, facilitate and support teachers, and satisfactorily meet students’ educational needs and requirements; thus, improving the overall teaching and learning experience. But in order for this to be achieved, student habits, knowledge, requirements, personalities, experiences, and characteristics must be taken into account and appropriate educational strategies and methods should be adopted. By utilizing virtual reality and gamification in conjunction, secure, safe, immersive, and interactive learning environments that have students at their core can be created. These environments promote active involvement, offer a sense of presence, provide personalized learning experiences, allow students to learn both individually and collaboratively, to experience environments and situations, and to participate in activities that would not be possible otherwise. Students that experienced learning in such gamified environments demonstrated better academic performance, enhanced motivation and engagement, improved psychological states and behaviors, and increased knowledge acquisition and retention. Students felt that these environments made them more focused, stimulated their imagination and curiosity, facilitated the comprehension of the subject, and were more intriguing, fun, and interesting compared to traditional learning. Most studies reported positive outcomes and very few reported some neutral or negative results (e.g., motion sickness).

It is important to note that besides students’ assessing the use of gamification and virtual reality in the educational process positively, teachers were also favorable toward it and willing to familiarize themselves with using them and to create related educational material. This is particularly significant since teachers’ role is essential for student development and the productive and efficient conduct of the educational process. Hence, teachers’ acceptance of virtual reality and gamification and acknowledgement of the benefits they can yield is determining for their adoption and integration in educational settings. Based on the results, and the research instruments used to assess the applications, the development and validation of assessment instruments is a must.

According to the aforementioned results, the countries which explored the use of gamification and virtual reality in teaching and learning activities the most were Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, Greece, and the United States. The studies were conducted in 37 different countries around all inhabited continents; thus, supporting the idea that the use of virtual reality and gamification in education has attracted worldwide interest. Most studies were published during the years 2019, 2020, and 2022, focused on higher education and put emphasis on medical and health-care education, STEM subjects, language learning, and computer science. The majority of studies involved students, used quantitative research methods, and aimed at evaluating the effect of gamification and virtual reality in education and understanding the participants’ perceptions and experience. As a result, most of the measures were subjective. Based on the MMAT, the quantitative studies mostly adopted the Quantitative descriptive approach, followed by Randomized controlled and Non-randomized approaches which were used to a lesser extent. The mixed methods studies mostly used a qualitative approach in combination with a Quantitative descriptive approach, followed by qualitative and Randomized controlled as well as qualitative and Non-randomized approaches to a far less extent. The most popular device was HTC Vive (Pro), Windows was the most widely used operating system, and Unity was by far the most commonly used development platform. It is worth noting that several studies did not use any specialized equipment but low-cost head-mounted devices which led to positive results, nevertheless. Students’ cognitive development was the main focus of most studies; hence, the need to further analyze and comprehend the effect of gamification and virtual reality on student social-emotional and physical development is evident.

Discussion

Educational and societal needs and demands evolve along with technology; hence, the emergence of new pedagogical approaches and the use of technological applications in teaching and learning are inevitable (Ribeiro et al., 2019). Ethical, moral, and cultural factors (Hincapie et al., 2021; Lally et al., 2012) and students’ needs, pursuit for more active and meaningful learning, characteristics, personality traits, and learning styles should be taken into account to facilitate the adoption and integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in education and to create educational experiences and activities that will lead to better learning outcomes (Bayne, 2014; DiLullo et al., 2011; Hussin, 2018). By incorporating technology-enhanced learning and multimedia learning into educational contexts, traditional teaching and learning activities can be transformed, the educational process becomes more student-centered and personalized and the educational material can be enriched with multimedia to be more effective and interactive (Djurovic & Djurovic, 2010; Sung et al., 2016).

Virtual reality supports multimedia learning and the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Parong & Mayer, 2018) which states that when compared to solely textual information, the use of audiovisual information can lead to more engaging learning experiences which, in turn, result in improved learning outcomes (Mayer, 2020; Mayer & Moreno, 1998). As it becomes more widely adopted, the number of related applications and educational material increases while the required equipment becomes more affordable and advanced (Jensen & Konradsen, 2018). Additionally, although the devices used affect the overall student experiences and learning outcomes (Alamäki et al., 2021; Merchant et al., 2014), when designing student-centered approaches that take the unique student characteristics and environment conditions into consideration, even lower-end devices can bring about increased learning results (Adnan et al., 2020). Consequently, the use of virtual reality is gaining ground in both K-12 education (Merchant et al., 2014) and higher education (Freina & Ott, 2015). The effectiveness of virtual reality in education can be further increased through the use of gamification, several aspects of which are based on educational psychology (Kapp, 2012; Simões et al., 2013). The integration of gamification in education can positively affect students’ cognitive and affective domains (Mullins & Sabherwal, 2020; Ritzhaupt et al., 2021), increase their intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Dicheva et al., 2015; Van Roy & Zaman, 2018), and improve their behavioral and psychological states (Kim et al., 2017) which, in turn, can increase learning outcomes and student engagement (Wigfield et al., 2019).

Both virtual reality and gamification play a vital role in transforming traditional education and enriching current teaching and learning activities as well as in creating new instructional media, theories, and designs as well as novel pedagogical approaches and methodologies (An, 2021; Beck, 2019; Johnson et al., 2015). Specifically, immersive and interactive learning experiences, which occur in safe and secure virtual environments and can result in new teaching and learning opportunities and educational benefits, can be created through the use of gamification and virtual reality (Dede, 2009; Shapley et al., 2011). These environments are in line with active learning methodologies (Bai et al., 2020; Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2021), the motivational theory (Malone & Lepper, 1987), the engagement theory (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998), and the instructional theory (Dede et al., 2017; Rupp et al., 2019) as they motivate students to be engaged, participate actively, and remain committed to the educational activities and they enable them to cultivate their skills through hands-on experiences in both real-like and imaginary scenarios and conditions that otherwise would be impossible. As these immersive environments support experiential learning and offer personalized and authentic learning experiences, they allow students to play a central role in the learning activities which they can control and personally experience at their own pace (Brown et al., 1989; Kolb, 2014). As a result, students become more eager, inclined, focused, enthusiastic, and motivated to learn and actively participate in educational activities, stay engaged and interested longer, and attain better learning achievements (Barab et al., 2007; Robson et al., 2015; Roseth et al., 2008; Sharan, 2010). The gamified virtual reality environments can provide meaningful learning (Fan et al., 2015), increase student learning motivation and involvement (Alsawaier, 2018; Buckley & Doyle, 2014), and positively affect their emotions (López-Faican & Jaen, 2020) which are essential aspects of effective education (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2014; Tokan & Imakulata, 2019) and can bring about positive learning attitudes and behaviors (Kiili, 2005) and increase students’ engagement (Swartout & Lent, 2003), higher-order thinking (Crocco et al., 2016), knowledge acquisition, and learning outcomes (Huang et al., 2020). These environments create an interactive and positive climate (Hamari et al., 2014), promote and support inclusive and ubiquitous learning, foster social interactions, cooperation, satisfaction, and positive behaviors, and create opportunities for effective collaborative learning (Gimbert & Cristol, 2003; Hamari & Koivisto, 2015; Liu et al., 2017; Pozo-Sánchez et al., 2022). Therefore, besides the benefits in terms of learning outcomes and knowledge acquisition, students can also cultivate their 21st century skills, critical thinking, decision-making, emotional awareness, and social skills which are vital in modern society in these immersive environments (National Research Council, 2012; Romasz et al., 2004).

Therefore, due to the potential impact that the adoption and integration of gamified virtual reality applications and experiences can yield in the educational domain, this study focuses on analyzing the existing literature to achieve a deeper understanding of the topic. Several valuable findings and insights emerged from this analysis. Despite the recency of the specific topic, empirical studies, proposal and prototype papers as well as review, conceptual and theoretical articles have already been published. This fact further validates the significance of the topic and its vast potentials to enrich the educational process. In contrast to the number of empirical studies and proposal and prototype papers that have already been published, there is a clear lack of theoretical articles that analyze the state-of-the-art and create the theoretical basis of this expanding research area. This specific study aims at filling this gap in the existing literature. Based on the data, the years of 2019 and 2020 had the largest number of related documents published. Given the fact that virtual reality HMDs became more easily accessible in 2016, the interest in them has been increasing since 2017 which is justifiable as new technologies require additional time to start being adopted in education. Moreover, Occulus Rift and HTC Vive and the different versions of theirs, which were mostly used in the studies examined, have been released since 2016 which led to an increase in empirical studies being conducted. The number of related documents being published has increased over the years and as the required equipment becomes more affordable, advanced, and accessible, it is expected that this number will be increasing. The reach and interest in this topic can also be observed since countries around all inhabited continents have actively been exploring this area of study. This is particularly interesting when taking the different social, cultural, economic, and political aspects that characterize education around the world into account. This fact highlights the applicability and suitability of gamified virtual reality applications and experiences to be adopted and integrated in different environments. Despite the fact that 37 different countries have contributed in this field, there is a clear lack of cross-country and cross-cultural studies being conducted. It, thus, remains difficult to generalize and specify how particular characteristics and elements of gamified virtual reality applications affect education and learners around the world since direct comparisons cannot be made due to the numerous differences. Therefore, there is a clear need for more such studies to be carried out so that the implications and effects of gamified virtual reality applications can be objectively studied in depth and from different dimensions.

Due to its nature, the use of gamified virtual reality applications has been adopted and examined in all educational levels. This fact highlights their flexibility, adaptability, and usability to be integrated to meet learners’ needs throughout their development. However, the vast majority of empirical studies as well as proposal and prototype papers focused on higher education, as it can be seen in Table 7. This outcome can be attributed to several reasons. For example, higher education students are more familiar with and accustomed to using new technologies, have a better understanding of their learning needs, and a better cohesion of technological applications. The topics and subjects being actively examined are more complex and suitable for higher education students and the evaluation tools used more appropriate for them as well. Additionally, it is easier to conduct virtual reality experiments involving higher education students since in some cases feelings of nausea have been reported with younger students. Another reason can be the differences in bureaucratic processes and ethical concerns that are required to carry out experiments between adults and underage participants. Finally, although the required equipment is becoming more accessible, higher education institutes are better and more appropriately equipped to carry out experiments, particularly the ones that are actively researching and developing virtual reality contents and applications. Despite this fact, there is a clear need for more studies that focus on primary, secondary, and K-12 education to be conducted so that the effect of gamified virtual reality applications on education can be more objectively assessed.

Table 7 Studies distribution according to educational level
Full size table

As far as the Empirical studies are concerned, the vast majority of studies (69.70%) used only students as their sample (Fig. 14). Some studies did not specify the exact sample nor provided age or background details and referred to the educational stakeholders that responded as participants (19.70%). Studies also focused on analyzing teachers’ perspectives. This fact highlights the important role of meeting students’ needs and having them at the core of new technology integration in education. Hence, it is important to take students’ viewpoints and feedback into account when developing gamified virtual reality applications and incorporating them in cooperative design approaches. Nonetheless, there is a need for more empirical studies to be conducted focusing on teachers to better comprehend their viewpoints, attitudes, acceptance, and readiness to integrate such solutions. Identifying teachers’ needs and the specific skills they lack to integrate gamified virtual reality in their classrooms would assist in creating and organizing appropriate and more effective training programs that would improve their skills and enhance their readiness to adopt such novelties. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the studies examined focused on developing and testing gamified virtual reality applications to assess the participants’ viewpoints and the impact they can have in education. As the topic is in its infancy, specialized aims were not observed. Therefore, future studies should put emphasis on analyzing how gamified virtual reality applications can influence specific areas of the educational process or specific variables associated with students’ learning rather than focus on more generalized aims.

Fig. 14
figure 14

Sample distribution

Full size image

Due to its nature, gamified virtual reality can be applied in various subjects across all educational levels. Hence, the studies examined span across several educational topics, subjects, and areas. As it can be seen in Tables 8 and 9 topics emerged when clustering the documents based on the subject they involve. The topics that emerged based on the most popular areas of study are medical and healthcare education (21.21%), followed by language learning (10.61%), STEM (10.61%), arts (9.09%), computer science (9.09%), engineering (7.58%), general skills (7.58%), architecture and design (6.06%), and cultural heritage (6.06%). As the name suggests, studies that could not be included in one of these categories and could not be grouped with others into new categories were clustered in the “Other educational topics” category (12.12%). Furthermore, no matter the subject, educational level, or sample, the significant majority of studies focused solely on the cognitive developmental area (92.42%). Only 3 out of the 66 empirical studies explored social-emotional development (Pinzón-Cristancho et al., 2019; Reitz et al., 2016; Šašinka et al., 2018) and only a single study focused entirely on participants’ physical development (Senecal et al., 2020). Specifically in education, understanding how a specific intervention can affect all developmental areas of students and learners is crucial for ensuring its effective and appropriate adoption and integration. Hence, there is a clear need for more studies that take into account the influence of gamified virtual reality applications on participants’ social-emotional and physical development.

Table 8 Topics, subjects, and areas examined
Full size table
Table 9 Measurement and research tools distribution
Full size table

Regarding the research approach and based on Table 10, most of the studies adopted a quantitative approach (63.64%), followed by Mixed (24.24%) and qualitative (12.12%) approaches. Moreover, based on the MMAT tool, the quantitative studies were separated into Quantitative descriptive (39.9%), Randomized controlled (13.64%), and Non-randomized (10.61%) categories while the mixed method studies were divided into Qualitative and Quantitative descriptive (16.67%), Qualitative and Randomized controlled (4.55%), and Qualitative and Non-randomized (3.03%) categories. This fact highlights the multidimensional nature of this topic and its ability to be examined from different angles and using different methods. In addition to the different approaches used to explore this topic, the studies examined used various measurement and research tools (Table 9). The vast majority of studies used ad hoc questionnaires and surveys (66.67%), followed by existing validated tools (27.27%) with TAM (Davis, 1993) being the most commonly used tool. Interviews and discussions (21.21%) as well as observations (13.64%) were also used but to a lesser extent. Studies that used pre-test and post-test (16.67%) or application related data (12.12%) were also conducted and led to more objective results. Few studies (6.06%) used specific task-related tools to evaluate the impact of gamified virtual reality applications.

Table 10 Research method and MMAT category distribution
Full size table

Given the different methods, approaches, and tools used, several variables have been examined throughout the studies included in this systematic review. When clustering the variables based on the frequency of use, 7 main variables were identified (Table 11). In particular, the studies focused on analyzing: (i) the participants’ viewpoints, attitudes, and experiences (59.09%), (ii) usability and ease of use (31.81%), (iii) learning outcomes, achievements, and skills development (30.30%), (iv) enjoyment, satisfaction, and acceptance (19.70%), (v) effectiveness (13.64%), (vi) motivation (9.09%), as well as (vii) knowledge acquisition and comprehension (7.58%). When looking into the approaches, the tools, the sample, and the main variables used, it is not surprising that the measures of the vast majority of studies were subjective (68.18%) as it can be seen in Table 12. Some studies (21.21%), mostly those that applied mixed method approaches, resulted in both objective and subjective measures. Finally, few of the studies led to strictly objective measures (10.61%) and these were mostly studies that adopted pre-tests and post-tests or used application-related data. Based on the aforementioned results, it can be concluded that there is a clear need for more standardized and validated tools to be developed to more effectively evaluate gamified virtual reality learning experiences and to a greater extent extended reality experiences. These tools will also allow for comparative studies to be conducted. Additionally, more studies should focus on providing objective measures rather than rely solely on subjective measures through the analysis of the participants’ perspectives, opinions, and experiences. Finally, many studies focus solely on collecting and analyzing data derived only after the intervention which hinders the understanding of its true impact. Hence, future studies should focus on collecting data prior to the intervention so that comparisons with the data gathered after the intervention can be made to better comprehend the influence of the intervention. Comparative studies among different populations and topics should be promoted.

Table 11 Most frequently examined variables
Full size table
Table 12 Measures distribution
Full size table

Although many of the studies did not provide many details and specifications about the development of their application (e.g., the application development methodologies or system design), some findings emerged from the data extracted. Most studies used Windows (59.09%) as the operating system of their application, followed by android (13.64%) and few studies (4.55%) used different operating systems (Table 13). It is worth noting that only two studies (May & Denecke, 2020; Pinzón-Cristancho et al., 2019) explicitly indicated that their applications can be used in multiple operating systems. When we take into account the development tools used, of which Unity was by far the most used platform (56.06%) and given its ability to allow cross-platform development, it should be mentioned that potentially more applications could be cross-platform but were only examined using specific operating systems and devices. Other popular development tools and platforms (Table 14) that were used to develop the applications were: Unreal Engine (9.09%), Oculus Rift Development Kit (9.09%), SteamVR (7.58%), and Google VR SDK (6.06%). Different types of HTC Vive head-mounted devices were most widely used (37.88%) to carry out the experiments. General purpose head-mounted devices (27.27%) as well as the Oculus Rift (13.64%) were also used. These outcomes highlight several areas that can be further examined in the future. Due to the variety of the tools, the applications, and the approaches used as well as the differences in environments and settings, comparisons regarding the effects that different devices, platforms, and operating systems might have could not be explored. As the operating system and the platform may not significantly affect the outcomes, given the fact that many end-users are unaware of or disinterested in them, future studies should focus on exploring which devices can lead to better outcomes through the comparison of different devices in the same experimental settings. Additionally, future studies should provide more specifications about their applications and the development process so that their influence could be examined in more detail. It would also be worth exploring how different design and development approaches and methodologies could affect the impact of gamified virtual reality applications.

Table 13 Operating system distribution
Full size table
Table 14 Development tool distribution
Full size table

Presence and immersion are vital aspects in any virtual reality experience. Based on the results of the studies examined, the higher the presence and the immersion of a student is, the better the learning outcomes and educational benefits are. DoF and content representation are elements that affect students’ presence and immersion in the virtual environment. Based on Table 15, the vast majority of studies used 6-DoF (62.12%) while the rest used 3-DoF (37.88%). It is worth noting that most recent studies opted to use 6-DoF. Hence, it can be inferred that it is preferrable to allow students to more freely move within the virtual world and interact with their surroundings rather than restrict them as they will be able to become fully immersed and explore the virtual environments on their own. Nonetheless, based on the topic or subject to be explored, in some cases 3-DoF was used and led to increased learning outcomes. To determine how different DoF affect students and their learning experiences and outcomes, there is a clear need for carrying out more studies that directly compare applications with the same content and overall experience but with different DoF in the same settings and environments. Regarding content representation (Table 16), the overwhelming majority of the studies used immersive virtual reality (92.42%) rather than 360-degree content (7.58%). Based on the results, it can be inferred that by engaging themselves in immersive virtual reality environments and interacting with contents, objects, and other users, students become more engaged and immersed in the overall experience which, in turn, increases the educational benefits yielded. Gamification elements can also affect students’ presence and immersion as well as the overall learning experience and outcomes. Although game-like features and mechanisms were widely used across all studies examined in this systematic review, particular gamification elements including scores and points, quests and tasks, quizzes, virtual rewards and achievements, difficulty levels and challenges, feedback, mini-games, and leaderboards were observed in the majority of studies. Despite the fact that different gamification elements can affect learners’ presence, immersion, experience, and learning to a different degree, the variety in the nature of the applications, the experiments, and the environments did not allow the examination of the most optimal and impactful use of gamification elements. Future studies should focus on examining and comparing the influence that different gamification elements and their combination can have to determine the ones that improve and enrich the educational process more. In addition, besides the impact they can have on the educational process, future studies can also look into how different gamification elements can affect students.

Table 15 Degrees of freedom (DoF) distribution
Full size table
Table 16 Representation distribution
Full size table

Examining the impact of gamified virtual reality applications and experiences on education was a focal point of this study. It is worth noting that differences in terms of gender and age were also observed with younger participants showcasing more openness and acceptance of the integration of gamification and virtual reality learning experiences. Additionally, girls showcased higher levels of immersion and acceptance (Chiang, 2021; Fonseca et al., 2017a, 2020; Mouronte-López et al., 2020). Despite this fact, the overwhelming majority of the studies reported positive educational outcomes. To better understand the benefits and merits yielded through the integration of gamification and virtual reality in education, a thematic analysis of the benefits identified was conducted, the results of which can be seen in Table 17. A total of 18 broad categories were identified. More specifically, the adoption and integration of virtual reality and gamification in the educational process is positively viewed and accepted by the educational stakeholders and they are regarded as effective educational tools that can enrich and improve teaching and learning in all educational levels. Furthermore, the use of gamification and virtual reality applications can increase learning outcomes and academic performance and improve motivation, engagement, and active participation.

Table 17 Educational benefits of gamified virtual reality applications and experiences
Full size table

Being enriched with gamifiation elements and mechanisms, virtual reality experiences can also increase interaction, communication, and collaboration and improve knowledge acquisition and material comprehension. The gamified virtual reality environments offer enhanced immersion and provide students with realistic experiences which increase their satisfaction and enjoyment, improve their concentration and focus, and enhance their curiosity and creativity. Students’ social presence and sense of belonging to a group of people and relating to them can also be improved. As students are able to participate in experiential learning and gain hands-on experience in safe and secure environments, their skills, competences, and knowledge are increased and as a result, their self-efficacy is improved. When students experience environments that are characterized by high levels of realism and apply their theoretical knowledge into practice, better learning achievements can be yielded. These interactive environments that are easy to use and navigate can offer adaptive and personalized experiences and feedback and provide enjoyable, fun, and interesting learning environments. Based on the aforementioned, it is clear that the use of virtual reality and gamification in education can improve and enrich the overall educational process and create opportunities for new teaching and learning experiences. Through these immersive environments, students can experience ubiquitous learning in environments and settings that would have been impossible otherwise.

Other benefits were also observed but to a lesser extent. These benefits include: improved cross-cultural understanding (Zhang et al., 2016), creation of learning experiences that would have been impossible otherwise (Silva et al., 2021; Tan et al., 2022), opportunities for hands-on experiences in safe environments (Alexander et al., 2022), reduced costs and resources (Yengin & Bayrak, 2019), minimized risks (Muñoz et al., 2022), enhanced physical condition (Theethum et al., 2021), flexibility and accessibility (Abuhammad et al., 2021), as well as opportunities to create new formal and informal learning experiences (Bahrin et al., 2022) among others.

As technology improves and people around the world are becoming more connected through it, new opportunities arise to experience learning surrounded by and interacting with people and experts from all over the world within completely virtual environments, such as the metaverse. Although various educational benefits emerged in these studies, it is important for future studies to focus on objectively assessing and measuring the degree of impact that the use of virtual reality and gamification can have in education across different settings, educational levels, countries, cultures, and subjects in comparison to traditional face-to-face learning, online learning, and other novel solutions.

To design and develop such multimodal environments that offer meaningful learning experiences and increased learning outcomes and do not overload students with extensive information (Moreno & Mayer, 2007), several factors should be considered (Dondlinger, 2007; El-Masri & Tarhini, 2015; Nicholson, 2014) and specific design principles should be followed (Mayer, 2020). Additionally, to create effective learning experiences that integrate virtual reality and gamification, teaching and learning styles (Fan et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2019), learning objectives (Kiryakova et al., 2014), gamification elements (Tiefenbacher, 2020), student characteristics, and the specific activities, contexts, and environment conditions should be taken into account (Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2020). Creating or acquiring the required educational material, the cost of equipment, and the feelings of nausea that some younger students sometimes experience should also be taken into consideration (Chiang, 2021; Vagg et al., 2016). These experiences should provide clear and concise instructions and aims (AlKhateeb et al., 2019; Mayer, 2005), guided activities that stimulate student intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011), real-time and personalized feedback (Palmas et al., 2021; Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005), and allow students to learn at their own pace, reflect upon their results, and control the activities themselves (Moreno & Mayer, 2007). Hence, student-centered approaches should be followed when designing and creating such experiences (Alharbi et al., 2020). The role of educators in the adoption and integration of new technologies and ICT in educational activities is vital (Comi et al., 2017; Iquira et al., 2019). Therefore, educators along with students should be actively involved in the design and development of educational activities and applications as their experiences and viewpoints can help develop more effective learning experiences and environments that lead to increased academic performance (Cober et al., 2015). Moreover, it is crucial to provide teachers with the required training to develop both their technical and pedagogical digital competencies (Tømte, 2015) and not only to familiarize themselves with new technologies and approaches and learn how to effectively use and integrate them in their classroom, but also to create appropriate digital educational material (Davis & Roblyer, 2005). As the process of developing virtual reality applications can be challenging and complicated for non-tech-savvy people, there is a clear need to create educational tools that will facilitate the design and development process and will enable teachers to produce educational material for virtual reality environments. Finally, as the use of gamification and virtual reality in education is becoming more widespread, the need to develop widely accepted standards, guidelines, and reliable assessment instruments and validate them in different contexts is imperative.

Conclusions

As educational and societal needs and demands have changed, traditional learning needs to be reinforced and transformed through the use of new technological applications and approaches to adapt and meet the new requirements. The use of gamification and virtual reality in educational contexts is becoming more popular as a means to satisfy students’ pursuit for more interactive, immersive, engaging, and meaningful learning.

Aiming at examining the existing literature regarding the adoption and integration of virtual reality and gamification in education, this study involved the conduct of a systematic literature review following the PRISMA statement. Particularly, no limitations were set in terms of year of publication, educational levels, type of study, and subjects to provide a more comprehensive overview of the topic. Using a versatile search query, 950 related documents were retrieved from 5 scientific databases. After having examined the articles, in total 112 were included in this study. These articles were separated into empirical studies, proposal and prototype papers, and review, conceptual, and theoretical articles. Moreover, 16 research questions were set and answered through the analysis of these articles.

Based on the results, the use of gamification can positively influence educational activities and enrich virtual reality experiences to create more interactive, engaging, and motivating learning environments. The vast majority of studies reported positive outcomes regarding learning achievements and student satisfaction. Both students and teachers positively assessed their use in education, highly regarded their role in transforming traditional teaching and learning activities, and greatly valued the merits that they can bring in the educational process by facilitating and supporting teachers and successfully meeting student requirements and demands for more effective learning. Additionally, the use of gamification and virtual reality is in line with several pedagogical theories and approaches.

Learning environments that integrate virtual reality and gamification allow students to individually and collaboratively experience environments, situations, and conditions and partake in educational activities that otherwise would be impossible. Within these virtual, safe, and secure environments, students can get hands-on experiences and cultivate their skills. These environments offer personalized learning experiences, provide a sense of presence, and promote active participation. Furthermore, the gamified virtual reality environments facilitate comprehension of the subjects taught, allow students to be more focused, and increase their curiosity and imagination. When compared to traditional learning, these environments are more intriguing, interactive, and enjoyable. Students’ learning experiences in such settings resulted in improved learning outcomes and academic performance, increased motivation and engagement, and enhanced knowledge acquisition. Positive changes in students’ attitude, behavior, and mentality and improved cognitive, physical, and social–emotional development were also observed. To design and develop more effective learning environments that integrate gamification and virtual reality and reap their full benefits, appropriate strategies, principles, and methods should be followed, teachers’ digital literacy skills and ability to incorporate such environments in their classrooms should be taken into account, and students’ unique personality traits and characteristics, knowledge, interests, habits, and preferences should be considered.