ArticleBMC medical education2025
A scoping review of gamified applications in English language teaching: a comparative discussion with medical education.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global scientific production on gamification in medical education: A bibliometric exploration.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Designing for Engagement in Primary Health Education Through Digital Game-Based Learning: Cross-National Behavioral Evidence from the iLearn4Health Platform.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the increasing integration of technology in education, understanding how gamification can enhance language learning is crucial for developing effective teaching strategies. This scoping review explored the current landscape of gamified applications within TEFL while discussing comparative insights from medical education to outline effectiveness and potential across disciplines.
methodA systematic search following the PRISMA-ScR protocol was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC, and Embase databases to identify studies published between 2010 and 2024. English or Persian Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research examining interventional approaches or gamified applications in TEFL reporting on the effectiveness of these applications, detailing their design and implementation strategies, and identify the target student populations were included.
resultsA total of 33 studies were included in the review, with an emphasis on their publication year, geographical distribution, study designs, delivery modes, technology utilization, gamification elements, and measurement tools. The review revealed that most publications were concentrated in 2018, with a significant number originating from Asia. The total number of students involved in the intervention studies was 2,531. Quasi-experimental pretest/posttest designs were the most common methodologies used, followed by mixed-method approaches. Online delivery emerged as the predominant mode of instruction, with mobile learning technologies frequently utilized. Feedback was identified as the most commonly employed gamification element, followed by challenges that fostered learner engagement.
conclusionThe findings highlighted the effectiveness of gamified applications in enhancing motivation and engagement among language learners. Immediate feedback and interactive elements are critical components that contribute to improved learning outcomes. As interest in gamification continues to grow, further research is warranted to explore its long-term impacts and potential applications across diverse educational contexts. This review underscores the importance of integrating gamification into TEFL to create dynamic and effective learning environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.