Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The rapid development of information and communications technology (ICT) has transformed education and society. Applying gamification in education can enhance students’ motivation, interest, and performance to meet the demands of the 21st century. The present study used the hermeneutic research design to explore teachers’ challenges and concerns for integrating gamification at the elementary level in Pakistan. A purposive sampling technique was used to select the sample of seven elementary teachers working in the school education department. We developed a semi-structured interview protocol guide to collect data through face-to-face interviews. After transcribing data, it was analyzed with the help of NVivo 12 Pro software. The authors explored teachers’ challenges and concerns related to their training and the ability to integrate gamification in a non-gamified context. Participants show they do not have the knowledge and training to incorporate gamification into education. They also revealed concerns about a lack of funds, curriculum alignment, time management, technological access, and assessment of students’ performance. Based on the findings, the researchers suggested that teachers should be trained and provided the resources to meet the requirements of Society 5.0 and contribute to a human-centered society. The present study had a few limitations, but it had significant social, practical policy, and research implications.

Plain language summary

Implementing gamification for Society 5.0 education

This study explores how gamification in education can boost student motivation and performance, focusing on challenges faced by elementary teachers in Pakistan. Using interviews with seven teachers, the research highlights obstacles like lack of training, inadequate technology, and curriculum alignment. Solutions include better teacher training and resource availability.

Keywords

digital access digital competence gamification training challenges Society 5.0 curriculum alignment

Introduction

The swift development of information and communications technology (ICT) has resulted in rapid transformations in society and education (Carrión-Martínez et al., 2020). The start of digital transformation has given rise to the emergence of novel values, thereby establishing itself as a fundamental component of policy in various countries (Ari et al., 2022). The “Society 5.0” concept was introduced as a fundamental idea in the fifth Science and Technology Basic Plan, officially accepted by the esteemed Japanese Cabinet in January 2016 (Fukuda, 2020). We see ourselves in an exciting era, defined by the integration of globalization and the swift advancement of digital technologies (Muslikhin et al., 2021), including gamification, artificial intelligence (Beniiche et al., 2022), and robotics in education (Fukuyama, 2018). Hence, the educational environment and individuals’ values gradually transform toward greater diversity and intricacy.

Society 5.0 envisions the integration of advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and robotics, into every aspect of life (Ziatdinov et al., 2024). It focuses on a human-centered society that balances economic progress by solving social problems through technology (Martini et al., 2024). In education, “readiness for Society 5.0” refers to equipping teachers with the skills and knowledge needed to teach in a tech-driven society (Amjad et al., 2024), emphasizing critical thinking, problem-solving, digital literacy, and adaptability (Irwandani et al., 2024). This preparedness is essential because Society 5.0 seeks to bridge the gap between the digital and physical worlds, requiring teachers who can navigate technological systems while maintaining a human-focused approach in education. Therefore, integrating gamification into the educational environment is crucial for fostering the next generation of innovators and socially responsible citizens (Novo et al., 2024).

The term “gamification” was initially introduced in 2002 (Goi, 2023), but its use in education and scholarly investigations emerged during the latter half of 2010 (Dreimane, 2019). The integration of gamification has gained importance in education over the last 10 years (Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2023). Gamification has been used extensively to capture students’ attention and induce behavioral modifications (Moore-Russo et al., 2018). In schools, the implementation of gamification serves as a means to instill motivation and foster active participation among students (Dicheva et al., 2018). It has also been used to enhance students’ retention, academic performance, and class engagement (Ahmad et al., 2020).

Gamification refers to incorporating games in contexts unrelated to gaming (Johnson et al., 2017). This concept is closely associated with integrating the digital media sector in education (Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2023). Educational activities designed for gamification often involve Information Communication Technology (ICT; Moseikina et al., 2022). Gamification leads to the use of tools, mechanisms, technological elements, and game-oriented cognitive processes to enhance students’ class participation and motivation to achieve targeted behaviors and foster their capacity for learning and problem-solving (Wong et al., 2022). Gamification applies game-like thinking and is rooted in domains distinct from traditional gaming (Kayımbaşıoğlu et al., 2016).

Gamification integration involves applying games to real-life challenges (Al-Dosakee & Ozdamli, 2021). School-aged children develop cognitive and motor abilities through engaging in instructional games (Wichadee & Pattanapichet, 2018). Game-based learning has recently evolved as a prevalent medium due to its captivating and exhilarating characteristics (Harvey Arce & Cuadros Valdivia, 2020). Games utilize their inherent playful characteristics to engage and incentivize participants effectively. However, the success of gamification is heavily contingent upon teachers’ interest and mastery (Pham et al., 2021).

The knowledge gained through gamification produces a valuable understanding of gamification’s role across all education levels (Saleem et al., 2022). It is also evident that gamification is an influential pedagogical approach that other teaching methodologies, including flipped learning, can accompany (Ekici, 2021), learning through projects (Ingvarsson et al., 2023), cooperative learning (Molins et al., 2022), and problem-based education (Poonsawad et al., 2022). Gamification is a particular method that can be incorporated with other methodologies, enabling the integration of a practical learning approach (Mohammed & Ozdamli, 2021). The literature also mentioned that over 40% of the top 1,000 educational organizations may experience advantages in terms of student orientation and improved product quality by incorporating gamification components (Nadi-Ravandi & Batooli, 2022).

It is evident from the literature that teachers face various challenges in incorporating gamification strategies into their instructional practices (Alzahrani & Alhalafawy, 2023). Previous studies revealed that several challenges are associated with the implementation of gamification in educational settings (Manzano-Leon et al., 2022). These challenges encompass constraints in terms of time allocation for the preparation of gamification activities, limited understanding and familiarity with gamification techniques, and the complexities involved in organizing the physical classroom environment to facilitate game-based learning activities (Rakhmanita et al., 2023). Moreover, teachers may encounter challenges in regions with restricted internet connectivity while attempting to deliver dynamic instruction through digital mediums (Xiao et al., 2022).

Teachers encounter several challenges when incorporating gamification into their instructional methodologies (Araújo & Carvalho, 2022; Shafqat & Amjad, 2024). One significant challenge faced is the lack of time and familiarity with the intricacies of the design process, a field that teachers often perceive as intricate and distinct from their typical pedagogical approaches (Mårell-Olsson, 2022). Another challenge is maintaining a pedagogical balance to attain a deeper level of learning (Amjad et al., 2023; Sajinčič et al., 2022). To optimize the learning experience, teachers must strike an appropriate balance between utilizing gamification techniques to enhance student motivation and providing knowledge that is achieved efficiently (Yong & Halim, 2021). Certain organizational changes must be implemented to enhance the effectiveness of gamification activities. One such change involves allocating specific time for teacher teamwork (Karatas, 2018). This allows teachers to unite, exchange ideas, and develop strategies to integrate gamification into their teaching practices (Fidan & Şengel, 2022).

Furthermore, adjusting teachers to accommodate these activities is crucial. By forming well-suited teams for gamification, teachers can ensure a seamless integration of game elements into the curriculum (Vrcelj et al., 2023). Previous research suggested that these organizational changes are essential for successfully implementing gamification in educational settings. Teachers, too, encounter particular challenges in their journey, such as their level of expertise in gaming, their utilization of digital tools, and their inclination to embrace the uncertainties associated with implementing intricate gamified activities (Ekunola et al., 2022). Teachers’ challenges include a lack of expertise in utilizing computer games for educational purposes and a failure to adhere to pertinent approaches and design principles (Yeboah et al., 2023).

The integration of gamification in education is a challenging situation that necessitates a meticulous and deliberate approach driven by gamification principles (Bennani et al., 2022; Saleem et al., 2022). Game aspects include storytelling, character visualization, challenges, contests, awards, and other related features (Bai et al., 2022). Gamification is employed to convert the educational process into a game-like experience by integrating game elements, which incentivize and engage students (Azzouz Boudadi & Gutiérrez-Colón, 2020). Understanding the significance of gamification in education entails gaining insight into the specific conditions under which game components can effectively influence learning behavior (Yan et al., 2022).

Despite the challenges, several studies emphasize that teachers and students still believe that integrating games is an effective tool for educational success (Ros et al., 2020). According to research, students derive pleasure from engaging in the activity and perceive it as conducive to their learning process (Ardi & Rianita, 2022). Teachers view it as a means to actively involve students and discourage their involvement in non-educational gaming endeavors (Sajinčič et al., 2022). Using gamification has demonstrated effectiveness in enhancing student retention, information acquisition, and motivation in the educational process (Azzouz Boudadi & Gutiérrez-Colón, 2020). In the literature, several studies have been conducted on technology integrations to prepare our teachers for Society 5.0 (Gürdür Broo et al., 2022). No significant volume of research was found on teachers’ preparation for Society 5.0 to explore their challenges in integrating gamification at the elementary level.

Objective of the Study

To explore Pakistani teachers’ challenges and concerns with integrating gamification at the elementary level in the context of their preparedness for Society 5.0.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided the research.

What are teachers’ primary challenges when integrating gamification into the classroom?

How do these challenges impact the learning experience for students in the context of Society 5.0?

Materials and Methods

The literature guided the research philosophy for the current paper. The researchers went through similar studies and found that various studies used qualitative approaches to interviews (Demirbilek et al., 2022; Hursen & Bas, 2019; Oe et al., 2020; Zahedi et al., 2021) and focus group discussions (Chan et al., 2022; Wingo et al., 2019). At the same time, a few questionnaires were used (Kusdiyanti et al., 2022; Lampropoulos et al., 2022). The current paper focuses on answering the research questions in detail by immersing in the context. Therefore, the researchers used a qualitative approach to explore respondents’ beliefs about the phenomenon. Hence, this paper is grounded in interpretivism as its research philosophy. The authors recognized the significance of comprehending elementary teachers’ subjective experiences and views when incorporating games into teaching. It embraces the belief that reality is subjective. A qualitative technique was used to delve into the real-world encounters of elementary teachers, enabling a thorough investigation of their challenges and concerns. This interpretivism approach seeks to respect the diversity of teachers’ reality and classroom experiences while offering a rich and contextual understanding of how well-prepared they are for game-based learning.

Research Design

The chosen research methodology for this study is hermeneutics. Hermeneutics emerges as a suitable methodology for this study due to its inherent inclination toward understanding, analyzing, and interpreting the fundamental nature of Pakistani elementary school teachers’ lived experiences as they discussed integrating games into their pedagogical endeavors. The study employed a hermeneutic design to examine the subjective impressions, emotions, and meaning attributed by teachers to their experiences with game-based teaching.

Study Participants

The study participants were elementary-level teachers working in the Kasur district. Seven participants were selected using a purposive sampling technique of elementary school teachers from varied backgrounds who were willing to participate in this study to examine their preparedness for integrating games into teaching. The participant selection criteria comprised educators with diverse academic degrees and expertise in the field of education, encompassing individuals who are new to the profession and those with extensive experience to capture a wide range of opinions. Furthermore, participants were selected based on their inclination to actively participate in a qualitative study of their encounters with game-based education. To achieve a sample that precisely reflects the population, demographic variables such as gender, designation, experience, and educational background were considered within the contextual variations that could impact their readiness, concerns, and challenges in incorporating gaming elements into their instructional methods. Four of the respondents were male, while three of them were female (see Table 1). They all worked in public schools in the Kasur district (Chunian and Kasur cities), Punjab province of Pakistan.

Table 1.

Respondents’ Information.

Pseudonym	Gender	Designation	Experience	Education
Humaira	Female	EST	1 (<10 years)	M.Phil.
Umar	Male	EST	2 (>10 years)	M.Phil.
Abdullah	Male	PST	1 (<10 years)	Master
Shazia	Female	EST	2 (>10 years)	Master
Ali	Male	EST	1 (<10 years)	Master
Ashraf	Male	PST	2 (>10 years)	Bachelor
Nisha	Female	EST	1 (<10 years)	M.Phil.

Note. EST = elementary school teacher; PST = primary school teacher.

Data Collection Tool and Procedure

To collect data from study participants, we developed a semi-structured interview protocol guide, which allowed us to inquire further with the help of additional questions. To develop an interview guide, we extensively review the literature on society 5.0, gamification, and the challenges and concerns surrounding the integration of gamification into teaching methods. We developed an initial pool of statements related to the current study’s research questions. In this guide, we mentioned the process of conducting interviews, tentative timelines, the mode of recording, and details of consent for interviews. A sequential approach was utilized to validate and authenticate the semi-structured interview protocol for the investigation of the readiness of elementary school educators to incorporate games into teaching practices. To ensure the reliability of the semi-structured interview guide, it was reviewed by a committee comprising three experts in qualitative research methodologies and game-based learning to assess the relevance of the questions to the study’s objective. The input provided by the participants was incorporated into refining the interview questions. Utilizing an iterative approach in developing and validating a semi-structured interview protocol yielded a comprehensive and contextually appropriate tool for investigating the concerns and difficulties elementary school teachers face when incorporating games into teaching practices. Interviews were conducted one-to-one and audio-recorded after getting their permission. Interviews were 20 to 30 min long. Here are some sample research questions for the interview: (a) how would you describe the training and preparation elementary school teachers receive for integrating games into their teaching method? (b) what are some common concerns teachers have when integrating games into their teaching methods? Moreover, (c) what are the fundamental challenges you may face while integrating gamification in Society 5.0?

Data Analysis

The first step in the data analysis process involved transcribing the recorded interviews verbatim to maintain the data’s reliability and comprehensiveness. We followed the six-stage guidelines for a thematic analysis technique by Braun and Clarke (2006). Initially, open coding was implemented to break down the data into smaller units, thereby generating preliminary codes. These codes were subsequently categorized into more comprehensive groups using axial coding, discerning recurring themes and patterns of teachers’ preparedness, concerns, and challenges in integrating games. Throughout this procedure, ongoing comparison was employed to ensure credibility and trustworthiness.

Furthermore, selective coding (Table 2) enhanced the detected themes by constructing linkages and hierarchies. The analysis emphasized participants’ perspectives, focusing on preserving the depth and diversity of their experiences. The analysis was strengthened by incorporating peer debriefing and member checking, allowing participants to evaluate the findings.

Table 2.

Coding Process.

Global theme	Themes	Subthemes	Codes	Example quotes
Elementary teachers’ preparedness for gamification: challenges and concerns for gamification	Training-related challenges	Technology access and infrastructure	Lesser technological access	Not every teacher and student can access the required technologies at home and school. (Nisha)
		Resources and funding	Lack of funds and lack of resources	When the government announces less than 2 % of its GDP in the national annual budget, how can it provide sufficient resources and funds? (Shazia)
	Concerns about integrating games	Curriculum alignment	The syllabus cannot be covered in time	Integration of games requires extensive attention and time, which is not managed in the educational calendar provided by the department. (Umar)
		Assessment and progress monitoring	Individualized feedback and software-related issues	Teachers might face challenges integrating game-based assessments alongside conventional assessment techniques, such as exams and quizzes, to thoroughly assess students’ learning outcomes. (Humaira)

Research Ethics

Ethical considerations were carefully considered in the execution of this study on the readiness of elementary school teachers to incorporate games into teaching practices. We obtained informed consent from the participants in writing to participate in the study on a volunteer basis. To obtain informed consent, we briefly presented the current study’s aim and importance and discussed the data collection process in detail. The respondents agreed to participate in the current study due to the presentation. Informed consent was acquired from all participants, ensuring they were provided with complete details regarding the aim of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation, and the confidentiality of their responses. Participants were allocated pseudonyms to ensure anonymity, and all gathered data were securely protected to uphold confidentiality. During the study, the fundamental principles of respect, beneficence, and justice were diligently adhered to, with a primary focus on safeguarding the rights and well-being of the participants and ensuring fair and equal treatment. Implementing these ethical protocols protected the confidentiality of participants’ rights and enhanced the trustworthiness and credibility of the study’s results.

Results

The study’s global theme explored elementary teachers’ preparedness for integrating games into teaching. The research findings were divided into two major pieces (training-related challenges and concerns about incorporating games into teaching), each with four subthemes (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Detail of themes and subthemes emerged from data.

Training Related Challenges

The first research question was designed to explore elementary teachers’ training-related challenges in integrating games into their teaching methods. Respondents were asked about their preparation level during their induction and in-service training, and how they were trained. Talking about gamification, they emphasized that they faced many changes in integrating games into teaching methods. They believed that teachers must bring innovation to their teaching methodologies with the changing nature of teaching methods to adjust to students’ diversity, needs, and interests in schools. Gamification might help enhance students’ motivation, performance, participation, and engagement in the class. Most of them (five out of seven) believed that teachers’ training was the most neglected aspect for their preparedness to integrate games in classes to hold students’ interests and engagement in class. They were not adequately trained to enhance their knowledge of gamification. They were not provided with equipment, environment, or hands-on experience for gamification. Shazia said, “We have not been trained to integrate games to hold students' interests.” Even one of the respondents commented, “We had not been trained how to engage and maintain a learning conducive environment in context to the diversity of students.” (Ali). One of the respondents (Humaira) argued that they were encouraged to use different teaching techniques to teach diverse groups of students, but it was not related to gamification.

Lack of Technology Access and Infrastructure

During teachers’ training (induction, in-service, seminars, refresher courses), they were asked about their access to technology and infrastructure to improve their teaching methodologies. Three of them (Ashraf, Abdullah, and Umar) believed that teachers and students had poor access to technology to integrate games. Nisha elaborated further, saying.

“Not every teacher and student can access the required technologies at home and school. Some teachers and students would not have access to the devices or internet connectivity needed to interact with gamified materials inside and outside schools. This digital divide could lead to inconsistencies in participation.”

She believed that with this digital divide and lesser access to infrastructure, teachers might not make their teaching methodologies interactive for students. Due to this divide, effective teaching can be at risk (Shazia). Humaira talked at length about the technological use of tools. She argued.

“Certain individuals within the teachers lack digital literacy, which might be the root cause of their limited ability to navigate and utilize technology proficiently. This hinders their capacity to actively participate in gamified platforms or tools. This factor cannot be ignored. If we have to provide students such an environment, they should be properly trained to use the gadgets and tools for gamification.”

Ali and Nisha also discussed the limitations of the limited access to technology and infrastructure for gamification. They believed this factor is one of the challenges for teachers’ preparedness for gamification. Shaiza asked how she could teach students with games when she was not given the proper training and access to technology to integrate games into her teaching activities.

Lack of Resources and Funds

When the respondents were asked about the government’s narrative of providing sufficient resources and funds to schools and teachers for bringing innovative ideas to the classroom to facilitate students’ engagement, interaction, motivation, retention, and performance, two (Umar and Ali) said they had not received enough funding. Supporting this argument, Shazia said, “When the government announces less than 2 % of its total GDP in the national annual budget, how can they provide sufficient resources and funds.” Their arguments helped us to understand that schools and teachers are not provided with sufficient amounts to integrate games into teaching. Humaira talked about it, she said.

“Integrating games in teaching demands extra resources and funds other than schools' non-salary budget (NSB). Gamification is still a new concept for Pakistani teachers, and they are not in the habit of practicing it. Teachers need to be equipped with the knowledge, hands-on practice, and continuous professional training for introducing games in teaching, and this requires a lot of hard work and resources.”

Shazia also expressed similar concerns that the government should take action on gamification and integrate it into education, which can bring out-of-school children back to school. Two respondents (Nisha and Ashraf) argued that games could not be integrated into schools without resources and funds.

Concerns for Integration of Games to Teaching

The second research question was designed to explore participants’ concerns and fears about integrating games into teaching. Elementary school teachers have voiced several concerns about gamification in the classroom. First, there are concerns about the distractions and addiction that gamified instructional tools may cause (Ali). Abdullah talked about teachers’ concerns that if students spend more time playing video games than learning, they will waste valuable class time and miss learning chances.

Two (Shazia and Humaira) mentioned that gamification might have cultural barriers. Nisha talked at length, mentioning the cultural acceptance of gamification in the local context by saying,

“Teachers are afraid that gamified content will be incompatible with local cultural values, customs, and preferences. They are concerned that particular gaming components or themes would be considered unsuitable or objectionable in their cultural setting, resulting in cultural insensitivity or resistance from students and parents.”

Ashraf talked about the concern related to parental acceptance by saying,

“Parents normally do not like their children to get involved in movies and games. They believe such kind of activities might not help their children. Once, we arranged a session to teach soft skills to students with the help of short movies, but the next day, parents complained about the movie show in schools.”

Umar showed his concern that gamified teaching materials do not have a wide range of characters, settings, and daily life experiences, making it harder for students to learn about different cultures and ways of life. One of them (Abdullah) showed language barriers. He believed that most of the gamification content is in English, which might not be truly helpful for Urdu or Punjabi-speaking students.

Curriculum Alignment

Teachers express concerns regarding the potential ineffectiveness of gamified activities in adequately addressing and aligning with the curriculum’s designated learning objectives and results (Humaira). The objective is to ensure that allocating time toward gamification is closely linked to students’ acquisition of necessary knowledge and skills (Umar).

Three of them (Ashraf, Shazia, and Nisha) discussed concerns over the applicability of gamified content within the context of the curriculum. They believed that teachers might raise concerns about how the themes, topics, or events embedded inside the game correspond with the prescribed subject matter or if they introduce extraneous diversions. Ali talked about the concern of equitable use of games.

“There are potential concerns with the unavoidable bias of gamification towards specific learner profiles or individuals with more gaming proficiency, which may disadvantage other students. Teachers attempt to ensure that every student has equitable opportunities for success within a gamified setting.”

Abdullah also showed his concern that using games in education might overburden them in context to meet the class timings (time management) and cover the curriculum by following the educational calendar.

Assessment and Progress Monitoring

After analysis, it was found that teachers might encounter challenges while assessing the development and achievements of students in the context of gamified instructional approaches (Shazia). According to Umar, one possible concern is the translation of gamified outcomes, such as points or awards, into assessments that effectively measure students’ understanding and align with established curriculum standards. Abdullah argued that the feasibility of delivering individualized feedback and assessment within a gamified educational environment is a major concern. He argued that every child has different developmental and learning extent. Thus, gamification might mislead teachers in providing individual assessment feedback.

Ali and Ashraf expressed their concerns regarding potential technological challenges that might be faced during game-based assessments. These concerns encompass software-related issues, connectivity disruptions, or hardware constraints, all of which can hinder the smooth progression of the assessment procedure, Humaira said in response to the question.

“Teachers might face challenges integrating game-based assessments alongside conventional assessment techniques, such as exams and quizzes, to thoroughly assess students' learning outcomes. Teachers feel comfortable using traditional assessment techniques and traditional teaching methodologies. Therefore, introducing gamification in education will influence the traditional assessment.”

The above response of Humaira raises a potential challenge with incorporating game-based assessments into conventional educational techniques, suggesting that teachers may run into challenges when attempting to assess students’ learning results using both traditional assessment methods and game-based exams. The response also implies that teachers could favor conventional assessment techniques because of their experience with them, meaning that gamification in education could upend long-standing assessment practices and possibly encounter teacher resistance. This conclusion highlights the importance of thorough planning and professional development when gamification is used in the educational system to ensure a seamless integration with current assessment methods.

Discussion

The present study examined elementary-level teachers’ challenges and concerns about integrating games into their teaching methods. The selected teachers talked about the challenges for integration, which were related to their training, infrastructure, resources, and attitudes. Their main concerns were about curriculum alignment, assessment, and progress monitoring. The responses obtained from the interviews match the key challenges highlighted by previous studies. Concerns raised by Ashraf, Abdullah, and Umar about students’ and teachers’ limited access to technology reflect the digital divide problem identified by Ofosu-Ampong et al. (2020). Smith and Abrams (2019) research highlights differences in educational possibilities due to unequal access to technology. Nisha’s observations on the digital divide’s impact on participation are consistent with these findings. Humaira’s emphasis on digital literacy is consistent with Hoffmann’s (2020) case for teachers necessitating advanced computer skills. Ali and Nisha’s recognition of inadequate technology availability as a challenge is consistent with Park and Kim (2023), whose study on technological readiness in gamification deployment. Gómez-Carrasco et al. (2020) argued that teachers need to be trained and supported in using new methods of instruction, which is reinforced by Shazia’s concern. From these replies, it is clear that bridging the digital literacy gap and providing sufficient training and support for gamification integration are crucial (Manzano-León et al., 2022).

The findings from the interviews indicate the persistent challenge of insufficient funds and resources for implementing gamification in education. It is consistent with the resource constraints described in research by An et al. (2021) and Fogarty (2019) that Umar and Ali said they had insufficient funds. Shazia’s comments about the inadequate funding for education reflect concerns raised by Casals et al. (2020). Research highlights the significance of teacher preparedness (Malvasi & Recio-Moreno, 2022), which aligns with Humaira’s emphasis on the necessity for training and resources. Shazia’s perspective brings to the discussion that gamification to re-engage students is consistent with the research of Nand et al. (2019), which examines the larger societal impact of innovative teaching approaches. The arguments presented by Nisha and Ashraf further highlight the persistent difficulty of inadequate school resources in implementing gamification (Kamalodeen et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021). These results highlight the diverse aspects of the situation and the need for all-encompassing solutions in the context of gamification in education, where budget and resource shortages are continuous issues.

Compared to earlier studies, the findings from the interview replies illustrate several key challenges with the incorporation of gamification into education. The concerns expressed by Humaira and Umar on the effectiveness of gamified activities are in line with other research that stressed the necessity of gamification and curriculum objectives being in line (Saleem et al., 2022). Studies highlighting the significance of integrating game material with educational objectives (Duggal et al., 2021) align with Ashraf, Shazia, and Nisha’s focus on applying gamified content within the curriculum framework. Unique insights are provided by Ali’s discussion of potential bias in gamification and Abdullah’s concern over time management, highlighting the necessity of inclusivity and pragmatic challenges. These comments highlight the complex issues with gamification integration, such as curriculum alignment, equity, and time management, underlining the significance of an all-encompassing strategy for gamification in education (Duggal et al., 2021; Grabner-Hagen & Kingsley, 2023).

By comparing and contrasting with other studies, the interview results shed light on challenges teachers may have when using gamified educational approaches. Shazia’s concern regarding assessing her pupils’ development and achievements is consistent with studies highlighting the assessment challenges inherent in gamification (Obaid et al., 2020; Sandrone & Carlson, 2021). The emphasis that Umar places on transforming gamified results into effective assessments is consistent with the calls for more rigorous assessment approaches that have been made in the literature (Al-Rayes et al., 2022). Studies illustrate the difficulty of adapting exams to learners with varying needs (Xu et al., 2021), lending credence to Abdullah’s concern regarding personalized feedback. The technology challenges encountered by Ali and Ashraf are consistent with research into technical problems in gamification (Bennani et al., 2022). The possible conflict between game-based and traditional assessments is something that Humaira has brought to light, adding a new dimension to a problem and highlighting the importance of a careful balance between the two (Trinidad et al., 2021). These responses highlight gamification’s translation, individualization, and technological assessment challenges, demonstrating the need for thorough planning and professional development when gamification is introduced into the classroom (Souza et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022).

Conclusions

We designed the present study to explore elementary-level teachers’ challenges and concerns for integrating gamification in education. The objective of the study was to examine their preparedness for Society 5.0. The findings derived from the interviews have provided insights into the challenges and concerns teachers might face while incorporating gamification into elementary education, thereby coinciding with our research objectives. The concerns expressed by teachers regarding inadequate technological access, digital literacy, and training align with the broader challenges outlined in academic literature. Likewise, concerns over insufficient funding and resource shortages align with prior research on the financial challenges of implementing innovative pedagogical approaches.

Moreover, the results surrounding the alignment of curriculum and the challenges associated with assessment highlight the persistent requirement for a well-rounded strategy incorporating gamification within the context of learning objectives. These results highlight the intricate nature of the challenges related to gamification in elementary schools, emphasizing the significance of comprehensive approaches and meticulous planning to ensure its effective implementation. These concerns show that elementary-level teachers in Pakistan are not yet ready to adopt the guidelines, characteristics, and needs of Society 5.0.

Limitations and Implications

Limitations

The present study had several limitations that can be addressed in future research. For example, our sample comprised only seven respondents, which might be increased in future studies to improve the results’ generalizability and significance. The sample comprised only elementary-level teachers. Thus, the result may not be true for the secondary-level teachers. Future researchers can choose a more diverse sample. We used semi-structured interviews as data collection, which may not reflect the depth of the investigation. This limitation can be addressed by adding observations to get a detailed and in-depth picture of the phenomenon.

Social Implications

The findings of this study hold significant social implications, particularly concerning the readiness of elementary-level teachers in Pakistan for the emerging educational landscape of Society 5.0. The concerns raised by teachers regarding limited technological access, digital literacy, and training underscore the need for broader societal efforts to bridge the digital divide and enhance digital literacy among educators. Additionally, the challenges related to curriculum alignment and assessment highlight the importance of aligning educational practices with evolving societal needs. Addressing these concerns is vital for ensuring that students are adequately prepared for the demands of Society 5.0, which emphasizes integrating technology and innovation into various aspects of daily life. Societal stakeholders, including policymakers, educational institutions, and teacher training programs, should consider these findings as they work toward a more technologically proficient and gamified education system.

Practical Implications

From a practical standpoint, the findings of this study emphasize the need for comprehensive teacher training and support programs to prepare elementary-level teachers for integrating gamification into education. Addressing technological access, digital literacy, and training concerns should be a priority for educational institutions and relevant authorities. Additionally, the financial challenges highlighted by teachers necessitate strategic allocation of resources to support the implementation of innovative pedagogical approaches. Practical solutions may include providing teachers access to the necessary technology, offering professional development opportunities, and designing curriculum frameworks seamlessly integrating gamified elements. Furthermore, practical strategies should be devised to ensure that assessments effectively measure students’ understanding while embracing the benefits of gamification. These practical implications are vital for facilitating a smooth transition to Society 5.0-compatible education.

Policy Implications

Looking ahead, the findings of this study offer valuable insights into the future direction of elementary education in Pakistan and beyond. As society continues to evolve into Society 5.0, the role of technology and gamification in education will become increasingly prominent. The challenges and concerns identified in this research signal the need for ongoing research and innovation in teacher training, curriculum design, and resource allocation. Future educational initiatives should focus on equipping teachers with the necessary digital skills, fostering a culture of technological integration, and devising assessment methods that accommodate gamified learning. Moreover, the findings suggest that policymakers and educational institutions should work collaboratively to develop holistic strategies that address these concerns comprehensively. The future of elementary education will depend on how effectively these challenges are navigated, ensuring that teachers and students are well-prepared for the demands of Society 5.0.

Future Research

Future research endeavors should build upon the insights gained from this study to explore further the various challenges and opportunities for the integration of gamification in elementary education. Studies into the effectiveness of teacher training programs, curriculum designs, and resource allocation strategies would be invaluable to inform evidence-based policies and practices. Additionally, exploring the experiences and perspectives of students and parents in the context of gamified learning could provide a holistic understanding of the educational landscape readiness for Society 5.0. Furthermore, longitudinal studies tracking the evolution of elementary education in response to these challenges and societal changes would offer valuable insights into the long-term impact of gamification in preparing students for the dynamic, technology-driven world of the future. Moreover, future research should strive to provide actionable recommendations and contribute to the ongoing transformation of elementary education in the digital age.

Footnotes

The authors thank UNITAR International University for the support of the publication of this research.

ORCID iDs

Amjad Islam Amjad

Sarfraz Aslam

Nisar Abid

Umaira Tabassum

Faiza Shafqat

Author Contribution

Amjad Islam Amjad: Conceptualization,Formal analysis,Writing—original draft,and Supervision. Led the formulation of research goals and designed the overall study framework. Conducted formal analysis of the data and contributed to the original draft of the manuscript. Sarfraz Aslam: Data curation,Methodology,Investigation,and Writing—review & editing. Responsible for data collection and management,development of the methodology,and conducting vital research investigations. He played a significant role in reviewing and editing the manuscript for intellectual content. Nisar Abid: Writing—review and editing,Resources,Project administration,and Validation. He also contributed to the validation process of research results. Umaira Tabassum: Writing—review and editing. Assisted in revising sections of the methodology and references and reviewed the final manuscript for coherence and completeness after the first round of review. Faiza Shafaqat: Writing—review and editing. She contributed to revising the abstract,objectives,conclusions,and implications. She also reviewed the final manuscript to ensure coherence and completeness after the first round of review.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Ahmad

Zeshan

Khan

M. S.

Marriam

Ali

Samreen

(2020). The impact of gamification on learning outcomes of computer science majors. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 20(2), 1–25.

Al-Dosakee

Ozdamli

(2021). Gamification in teaching and learning languages: A systematic literature review. Revista Romaneasca Pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 13(2), 559–577.

Al-Rayes

Al Yaqoub

F. A.

Alfayez

Alsalman

Alanezi

Alyousef

AlNujaidi

Al-Saif

A. K.

Attar

Aljabri

Al-Mubarak

Al-Juwair

M. M.

Alrawiai

Saraireh

Saadah

Al-umran

Alanzi

T. M.

(2022). Gaming elements, applications, and challenges of gamification in healthcare. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked, 31, 100974.

Alzahrani

F. K.

Alhalafawy

W. S.

(2023). Gamification for learning sustainability in the blackboard system: Motivators and obstacles from faculty members’ perspectives. Sustainability, 15(5), 4613.

Amjad

A. I.

Aslam

Tabassum

(2024). Tech-infused classrooms: A comprehensive study on the interplay of mobile learning, ChatGPT and social media in academic attainment. European Journal of Education, 59, e12625. https://doi.org/10.1111/EJED.12625

Amjad

A. I.

Tabbasam

Habib

(2023). Uncovering teachers’ concerns and multi-dimensional attitude towards inclusive education: Who’s included and who’s excluded. Journal of Contemporary Trends and Issues in Education, 2(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.55628/JCTIE.V3I1.71

Zhu

Bonk

C. J.

Lin

(2021). Exploring instructors’ perspectives, practices, and perceived support needs and barriers related to the gamification of MOOCs. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33, 64–84.

Araújo

Carvalho

A. A.

(2022). Enablers and difficulties in the implementation of gamification: A case study with teachers. Education Sciences, 12(3), 191.

Ardi

Rianita

(2022). Leveraging gamification into EFL grammar class to boost student engagement. Teaching English with Technology, 22(2), 90–114.

10.

Ari

Altinay

Dagli

Ari

(2022). Sustainable management and policies: The roles of stakeholders in the practice of inclusive education in digital transformation. Electronics, 11(4), 585.

11.

Azzouz Boudadi

Gutiérrez-Colón

. (2020). Effect of gamification on students’ motivation and learning achievement in second language acquisition within higher education: A literature review 2011-2019. EuroCALL Review, 28(1), 57–69.

12.

Bai

Hew

K. F.

Gonda

D. E.

Huang

Liang

(2022). Incorporating fantasy into gamification promotes student learning and quality of online interaction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 1–26.

13.

Beniiche

Rostami

Maier

(2022). Society 5.0: Internet as if people mattered. IEEE Wireless Communications, 29(6), 160–168.

14.

Bennani

Maalel

Ben Ghezala

(2022). Adaptive gamification in E-learning: A literature review and future challenges. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(2), 628–642.

15.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

16.

Carrión-Martínez

J. J.

Luque-de

Rosa

Fernandez-Cerero

Montenegro-Rueda

(2020). Information and communications technologies (ICTs) in education for sustainable development: A bibliographic review. Sustainability, 12(8), 3288.

17.

Casals

Gangolells

Macarulla

Forcada

Fuertes

Jones

R. V.

(2020). Assessing the effectiveness of gamification in reducing domestic energy consumption: Lessons learned from the EnerGAware project. Energy and Buildings, 210, 109753.

18.

Chan

G. L.

Santally

M. I.

Whitehead

(2022). Gamification as technology enabler in SEN and DHH education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9031–9064.

19.

Demirbilek

Talan

Alzouebi

(2022). An examination of the factors and challenges to adopting gamification in English foreign language teaching. International Journal of Technology in Education, 5(4), 654–668.

20.

Dicheva

Irwin

Dichev

(2018). OneUp: Supporting practical and experimental gamification of learning. International Journal of Serious Games, 5(3), 5–21.

21.

Dreimane

(2019). Gamification for education: Review of current publications. Didactics of Smart Pedagogy: Smart Pedagogy for Technology Enhanced Learning, 453–464.

22.

Duggal

Gupta

L. R.

Singh

(2021). Gamification and machine learning inspired approach for classroom engagement and learning. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021, 1–18.

23.

Ekici

(2021). A systematic review of the use of gamification in flipped learning. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 3327–3346.

24.

Ekunola

G. T.

Babalola

E. O.

Omolafe

E. V.

Ibrahim

A. T.

(2022). Undergraduate students’ awareness to adopt gamification for learning in University of Ilorin, Nigeria. ASEAN Journal for Science Education, 1(1), 17–22.

25.

Fidan

Şengel

(2022). An examination of opinions of teacher candidates on a course enriched through gamification. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 5(4), 754–774.

26.

Fogarty

T. L.

(2019). A description of gamification in teaching second language pharmacy technician students. Pharmacy Education, 19, 212–218.

27.

Fukuda

(2020). Science, technology and innovation ecosystem transformation toward society 5.0. International Journal of Production Economics, 220, 107460.

28.

Fukuyama

(2018). Society 5.0: Aiming for a new human-centered society. Japan Spotlight, 27(5), 47–50.

29.

Goi

C. L.

(2023). Gamification in business education: Visualizing bibliometric networks analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 98(5), 229–241.

30.

Gómez-Carrasco

C. J.

Monteagudo-Fernández

Moreno-Vera

J. R.

Sainz-Gómez

(2020). Evaluation of a gamification and flipped-classroom program used in teacher training: Perception of learning and outcome. PLoS One, 15(7), e0236083.

31.

Grabner-Hagen

M. M.

Kingsley

(2023). From badges to boss challenges: Gamification through need-supporting scaffolded design to instruct and motivate elementary learners. Computers and Education Open, 4, 100131.

32.

Gürdür Broo

Kaynak

Sait

S. M

. (2022). Rethinking engineering education at the age of industry 5.0. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 25, 100311.

33.

Harvey Arce

N. P.

Cuadros Valdivia

A. M

. (2020). Adapting competitiveness and gamification to a digital platform for foreign language learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(20), 194–209.

34.

Hoffmann

C. P.

(2020). „Digital Divide“ und „Gamification“. Chancen, Formen und Grenzen der digitalen Partizipation [Digital Divide” and “Gamification”: Opportunities, Forms, and Limits of Digital Participation]. In Lorenz

Hoffmann

C. P.

Hitschfeld

(Eds.), Partizipation Für Alle Und Alles? Fallstricke, Grenzen Und Möglichkeiten (pp. 383–405). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

35.

Hursen

Bas

(2019). Use of gamification applications in science education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(1), 4.

36.

Ingvarsson

Hallin

Kier

(2023). Project stakeholder engagement through gamification: what do we know and where do we go from here? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 16(8), 152–181.

37.

Irwandani

Suyatna

Haenilah

E. Y.

Maulina

(2024). Readiness of Indonesian pre-service science teachers for society 5.0. Journal of Education and Learning, 18(2), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.11591/EDULEARN.V18I2.21343

38.

Johnson

Horton

Mulcahy

Foth

(2017). Gamification and serious games within the domain of domestic energy consumption: A systematic review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 73, 249–264.

39.

Kamalodeen

V. J.

Ramsawak-Jodha

Figaro-Henry

Jaggernauth

S. J.

Dedovets

(2021). Designing gamification for geometry in elementary schools: Insights from the designers. Smart Learning Environments, 8(1), 24.

40.

Karatas

(2018). Gamified learning activities in a teacher education course. Online Submission, 19(1), 379–405.

41.

Kayımbaşıoğlu

Oktekin

Hacı

(2016). Integration of gamification technology in education. Procedia Computer Science, 102, 668–676.

42.

Kusdiyanti

Febrianto

Wijaya

Agustina

N. I.

(2022). Development of edu-kit media for entrepreneurship learning based on gamification model toward disruptive education. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 16(4), 17–28.

43.

Lampropoulos

Keramopoulos

Diamantaras

Evangelidis

(2022). Augmented reality and gamification in education: A systematic literature review of research, applications, and empirical studies. Applied Sciences, 12(13), 23–123.

44.

Malvasi

Recio-Moreno

(2022). Perception of gamification strategies in Italian secondary school. ALTERIDAD. Revista de Educación, 17(1), 50–63.

45.

Manzano-León

Aguilar-Parra

J. M.

Rodríguez-Moreno

Ortiz-Colón

A. M.

(2022). Gamification in initial teacher training to promote inclusive practices: A qualitative study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(13), 8000.

46.

Manzano-Leon

Rodriguez-Ferrer

J. M.

Aguilar-Parra

J. M.

(2022). Gamification in science education: challenging disengagement in socially deprived communities. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(1), 929–177.

47.

Mårell-Olsson

(2022). Teachers’ perception of gamification as a teaching design. IxD&A: Interaction Design and Architecture(s), (53), 70–100.

48.

Martini

Bellisario

Coletti

(2024). Human-centered and sustainable artificial intelligence in industry 5.0: Challenges and perspectives. Sustainability, 16(13), 5448. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU16135448

49.

Mohammed

Y. B.

Ozdamli

(2021). Motivational effects of gamification apps in education: A systematic literature review. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 12(2), 122–138.

50.

Molins

L. L.

Escorza

F. Y. B.

Campillay

N. S.

(2022). Enhancing cooperative learning and student motivation with gamification strategies: A case study in industrial engineering. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 12(3), 611–627.

51.

Moore-Russo

Wiss

Grabowski

(2018). Integration of gamification into course design: A noble endeavor with potential pitfalls. College Teaching, 66(1), 3–5.

52.

Moseikina

Toktamysov

Danshina

(2022). Modern technologies and gamification in historical education. Simulation & Gaming, 53(2), 135–156.

53.

Murillo-Zamorano

L. R.

López-Sánchez

J. Á.

López-Rey

M. J.

Bueno-Muñoz

(2023). Gamification in higher education: The ECOn+ star battles. Computers & Education, 194, 104699.

54.

Muslikhin

Horng

J.-R.

Yang

S.-Y.

Wang

M.-S.

Awaluddin

B.-A.

(2021). An artificial intelligence of things-based picking algorithm for online shop in the society 5.0’s context. Sensors, 21(8), 2813.

55.

Nadi-Ravandi

Batooli

(2022). Gamification in education: A scientometric, content and co-occurrence analysis of systematic review and meta-analysis articles. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 10207–10238.

56.

Nand

Baghaei

Casey

Barmada

Mehdipour

Liang

H.-N.

(2019). Engaging children with educational content via gamification. Smart Learning Environments, 6, 11–15.

57.

Novo

Zanchetta

Goldmann

de Carvalho

C. V.

Zanchetta

Goldmann

Vaz

Carvalho

(2024). The use of gamification and web-based apps for sustainability education. Sustainability, 16(8), 3197. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU16083197

58.

Obaid

Farooq

M. S.

Abid

(2020). Gamification for recruitment and job training: Model, taxonomy, and challenges. IEEE Access, 8, 65164–65178.

59.

Takemoto

Ridwan

(2020). Is gamification a magic tool?: Illusion, remedy, and future opportunities in enhancing learning outcomes during and beyond the COVID-19. Budapest International Research and Critics in Linguistics and Education (BirLE) Journal, 3(3), 1401–1414.

60.

Ofosu-Ampong

Boateng

Anning-Dorson

Kolog

E. A.

(2020). Are we ready for gamification? An exploratory analysis in a developing country. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 1723–1742.

61.

Park

Kim

(2023). The Avaritia: Entrepreneurship practice to understand the problem of information control through gamification. Sustainability, 15(8), 6738.

62.

Pham

L. L. N.

Nguyen

H. T.

V. T. K.

(2021). Triggering students’ learning autonomy using the combination of M-learning and gamification: A case study at Nguyen Tat Thanh University. Teaching English with Technology, 21(2), 66–91.

63.

Poonsawad

Srisomphan

Sanrach

(2022). Synthesis of problem-based interactive digital storytelling learning model under gamification environment promotes students’ problem-solving skills. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 17(5), 103–119.

64.

Rakhmanita

Kusumawardhani

Anggarini

D. T.

(2023). Gamification in teaching innovation: Perception of teacher adaptation with the organism-response stimulus paradigm. Journal of Education and Development, 11(1), 221–224.

65.

Ros

Gonzalez

Robles

Tobarra

Caminero

Cano

(2020). Analyzing students’ self-perception of success and learning effectiveness using gamification in an online cybersecurity course. IEEE Access, 8, 97718–97728.

66.

Sajinčič

Sandak

Istenič

(2022). Pre-service and in-service teachers’ views on gamification. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 17(3), 83–103.

67.

Saleem

A. N.

Noori

N. M.

Ozdamli

(2022). Gamification applications in E-learning: A literature review. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 27(1), 139–159.

68.

Sandrone

Carlson

(2021). Gamification and game-based education in neurology and neuroscience: Applications, challenges, and opportunities. Brain Disorders, 1, 100008.

69.

Shafqat

Amjad

A. I.

(2024). Examining students’ perceptions, experiences, and ethical concerns about using ChatGPT for academic support: A phenomenological study. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 8(2), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.35484/PSSR.2024(8-II)36

70.

Smith

Abrams

S. S.

(2019). Gamification and accessibility. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 36(2), 104–123.

71.

Souza

V. S.

Marques

S. R. B. D. V.

Veríssimo

(2020). How can gamification contribute to achieve SDGS? Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ecogamification for tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 11(2), 255–276.

72.

Trinidad

Calderon

Ruiz

(2021). GoRace: A multi-context and narrative-based gamification suite to overcome gamification technological challenges. IEEE Access, 9, 65882–65905.

73.

Vrcelj

Hoić-Božić

Dlab

M. H.

(2023). Use of gamification in primary and secondary education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 9(1), 13–27.

74.

Wang

Gan

Wang

Huang

(2022). Initiatives and challenges in using gamification in transportation: A systematic mapping. European Transport Research Review, 14(1), 1–19.

75.

Wichadee

Pattanapichet

(2018). Enhancement of performance and motivation through application of digital games in an English language class. Teaching English with Technology, 18(1), 77–92.

76.

Wingo

N. P.

Roche

C. C.

Baker

Dunn

Jennings

Pair

Somerall

We, Jr

White

Willig

J. H.

(2019). “Playing for bragging rights”: A qualitative study of students’ perceptions of gamification. Journal of Nursing Education, 58(2), 79–85.

77.

Wong

Liu

Meng-Lewis

Sun

Zhang

(2022). Gamified money: exploring the effectiveness of gamification in mobile payment adoption among the silver generation in China. Information Technology and People, 35(1), 281–315.

78.

Xiao

Hamari

(2022). Internet-of-gamification: A review of literature on IoT-enabled gamification for user engagement. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(12), 1113–1137.

79.

Lio

Dhaliwal

Andrei

Balakrishnan

Nagani

Samadder

(2021). Psychological interventions of virtual gamification within academic intrinsic motivation: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 293, 444–465.

80.

Yan

Zhang

Lam

J. F. I.

Wei

(2022). Exploring the online gamified learning intentions of college students: A technology-learning behavior acceptance model. Applied Sciences, 12(24), 12966.

81.

Yeboah

Amponsah

K. D.

Commey Mintah

Sedofia

Kwarteng Donkor (Opare)

P. B

. (2023). Game-based learning in Ghanaian primary schools: Listening to the views of teachers. Education 3-13, 53(1), 99–113.

82.

Yong

Q. Q.

Halim

H. A.

(2021). Teacher’s application of gamification in teaching English online in Malaysian secondary schools. International Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 3(4), 120–130.

83.

Zahedi

Batten

Ross

Potvin

Damas

Clarke

Davis

(2021). Gamification in education: A mixed-methods study of gender on computer science students’ academic performance and identity development. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33, 441–474.

84.

Zhao

Srite

Kim

Lee

(2021). Effect of team cohesion on flow: An empirical study of team-based gamification for enterprise resource planning systems in online classes. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 19(3), 173–184.

85.

Ziatdinov

Atteraya

M. S.

Nabiyev

(2024). The fifth industrial revolution as a transformative step towards society 5.0. Societies, 14(2), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/SOC14020019

Bridging the Gap: Overcoming Teachers’ Hurdles in Implementing Gamification for Society 5.0 Education

Abstract

Plain language summary

Keywords

Introduction

Objective of the Study

Research Questions

Materials and Methods

Research Design

Study Participants

Data Collection Tool and Procedure

Data Analysis

Research Ethics

Results

Training Related Challenges

Lack of Technology Access and Infrastructure

Lack of Resources and Funds

Concerns for Integration of Games to Teaching

Curriculum Alignment

Assessment and Progress Monitoring

Discussion

Conclusions

Limitations and Implications

Limitations

Social Implications

Practical Implications

Policy Implications

Future Research

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Author Contribution

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References