<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2 20190208//EN" "http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.2/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" article-type="systematic-review" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en">
    <front>
        <journal-meta>
            <journal-id journal-id-type="pmc">F1000Research</journal-id>
            <journal-title-group>
                <journal-title>F1000Research</journal-title>
            </journal-title-group>
            <issn pub-type="epub">2046-1402</issn>
            <publisher>
                <publisher-name>F1000 Research Limited</publisher-name>
                <publisher-loc>London, UK</publisher-loc>
            </publisher>
        </journal-meta>
        <article-meta>
            <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.12688/f1000research.173134.1</article-id>
            <article-categories>
                <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
                    <subject>Systematic Review</subject>
                </subj-group>
                <subj-group>
                    <subject>Articles</subject>
                </subj-group>
            </article-categories>
            <title-group>
                <article-title>Gamification and the development of metacognitive processes: a systematic literature review</article-title>
                <fn-group content-type="pub-status">
                    <fn>
                        <p>[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]</p>
                    </fn>
                </fn-group>
            </title-group>
            <contrib-group>
                <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Varela Quiroga</surname>
                        <given-names>Claudia Viviana</given-names>
                    </name>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Conceptualization</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Formal Analysis</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Investigation</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Methodology</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Project Administration</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Resources</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Writing &#x2013; Original Draft Preparation</role>
                    <uri content-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9919-3557</uri>
                    <xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c1">a</xref>
                    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="a1">1</xref>
                </contrib>
                <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Buitrago Ropero</surname>
                        <given-names>Mauricio Esteban</given-names>
                    </name>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Project Administration</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Supervision</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Writing &#x2013; Original Draft Preparation</role>
                    <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/">Writing &#x2013; Review &amp; Editing</role>
                    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="a2">2</xref>
                </contrib>
                <aff id="a1">
                    <label>1</label>Cundinamarca, Universidad Antonio Narino, Bogot&#x00e1;, Cundinamarca, Colombia</aff>
                <aff id="a2">
                    <label>2</label>Cundinamarca, Fundacion Universitaria Los Libertadores, Bogot&#x00e1;, Cundinamarca, Colombia</aff>
            </contrib-group>
            <author-notes>
                <corresp id="c1">
                    <label>a</label>
                    <email xlink:href="mailto:cvarela@uan.edu.co">cvarela@uan.edu.co</email>
                </corresp>
                <fn fn-type="conflict">
                    <p>No competing interests were disclosed.</p>
                </fn>
            </author-notes>
            <pub-date pub-type="epub">
                <day>10</day>
                <month>12</month>
                <year>2025</year>
            </pub-date>
            <pub-date pub-type="collection">
                <year>2025</year>
            </pub-date>
            <volume>14</volume>
            <elocation-id>1387</elocation-id>
            <history>
                <date date-type="accepted">
                    <day>4</day>
                    <month>12</month>
                    <year>2025</year>
                </date>
            </history>
            <permissions>
                <copyright-statement>Copyright: &#x00a9; 2025 Varela Quiroga CV and Buitrago Ropero ME</copyright-statement>
                <copyright-year>2025</copyright-year>
                <license xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
                    <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</license-p>
                </license>
            </permissions>
            <self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1387/pdf"/>
            <abstract>
                <sec>
                    <title>Background</title>
                    <p>Gamification has encouraged growing interest in educational research because of its potential to improve motivation, participation, and self-regulated learning. However, its contribution to the development of metacognitive processes has not been studied thoroughly. This systematic literature review examines how gamification-based strategies support metacognitive processes, such as planning, monitoring, and evaluation, in educational contexts (Garc&#x00ed;a-L&#x00f3;pez et al., 2023; 
                        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">Gkintoni et al., 2024</xref>).</p>
                </sec>
                <sec>
                    <title>Methods</title>
                    <p>This review was conducted using the PRISMA 2020 methodology. Searches were conducted in Scopus and the Web of Science using the terms gamification, education, and metacognition. Only peer-reviewed, open-access articles published between 2019 and 2024 were included. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied during the selection of titles and abstracts and during the full-text review. After removing duplicates (n = 115), 253 records were examined; 181 were excluded because of irrelevance and 71 were included in the final analysis. Thematic analysis was used to extract information on theoretical frameworks, methodologies, metacognitive components, and higher-order cognitive processes.</p>
                </sec>
                <sec>
                    <title>Results</title>
                    <p>The findings revealed that gamification positively contributes to metacognition by activating processes, such as self-regulation, monitoring, and decision-making. The central elements of gamification, such as immediate feedback, progressive challenges, autonomy, and reward systems, support metacognitive awareness, and encourage active participation. Frequently cited theoretical frameworks, including studies, show that gamification promotes higher-order thinking skills such as problem-solving and critical thinking.</p>
                </sec>
                <sec>
                    <title>Conclusions</title>
                    <p>Gamification strengthens metacognitive processes when instructional design integrates meaningful goals, feedback mechanisms, cognitive challenges, and reflection opportunities. Evidence suggests that educational environments based on gamification are effective in promoting the planning, monitoring, and evaluation skills essential for autonomous learning and metacognitive development (
                        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">Ask et al., 2023</xref>). Future research should expand the scope of these databases and include non-open-access studies to reduce potential biases.</p>
                </sec>
            </abstract>
            <kwd-group kwd-group-type="author">
                <kwd>gamification</kwd>
                <kwd>metacognition</kwd>
                <kwd>cognitive skills</kwd>
                <kwd>systematic review</kwd>
            </kwd-group>
            <funding-group>
                <funding-statement>The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.</funding-statement>
            </funding-group>
        </article-meta>
    </front>
    <body>
        <sec id="sec5" sec-type="intro">
            <title>1. Introduction</title>
            <p>In recent decades, educational models have evolved toward approaches focused on students, promoting active methodologies aimed at meaningful learning (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">Edo Agust&#x00ed;n, 2023</xref>). Gamification has emerged as an innovative pedagogical strategy with the potential to positively impact the development of metacognitive processes by fostering students&#x2019; awareness of their own learning processes and promoting autonomy, self-reflection, and self-regulation.</p>
            <p>Over the last five years, academic production has shown significant interest in understanding how gamified dynamics influence the development of higher-order thinking skills, such as metacognition (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">Be&#x00e7;a et al., 2022</xref>; 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">Dong et al., 2024</xref>; 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref28">Pirta-Dreimane et al. 2024</xref>). Studies by 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref31">Rosli et al. (2019)</xref> and 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">C&#x00e1;ceres Reche et al. (2022)</xref> highlighted that gamification favors individual learning, fosters cooperation and social awareness, and facilitates collaborative learning environments.</p>
            <p>This study presents a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) aimed at analyzing the relationship between gamification and metacognitive processes in educational contexts. This study focuses on gamification based on cognitive theories that encourage critical and conscious reflection. Gamification is understood as the application of the characteristic elements of games, such as rewards, challenges, immediate feedback, and autonomy, in non-playful contexts to promote intrinsic motivation for learning (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">Hwang et al., 2024</xref>; 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">Leit&#x00e3;o et al., 2022</xref>). Metacognition is the ability to reflect on one&#x2019;s own cognitive process. This implies an advanced level of awareness and voluntary control over learning, which allows for the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of mental activities (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">Antonaci et al., 2019</xref>; 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">Garc&#x00ed;a-L&#x00f3;pez et al., 2023</xref>). Thus, the development of these metacognitive processes is essential for problem-solving and the effective transfer of knowledge to new contexts.</p>
            <p>Likewise, the relationship between gamification and metacognition has been highlighted by authors, such as 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref27">Peuters et al. (2024)</xref>, who argued that rewards and the mechanisms of self-regulation embedded in gamification can activate metacognitive processes such as planning and monitoring. Self-regulation is a learner&#x2019;s ability to plan, monitor, and adjust learning strategies autonomously in response to challenges and feedback and is essential for achieving meaningful learning (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref38">Zhao et al., 2024</xref>). Similarly, 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref37">Y&#x00e1;&#x00f1;ez De Aldecoa and G&#x00f3;mez-Trigueros (2022)</xref> argued that gamification enables students to analyze, reflect on, and adjust their learning strategies.</p>
            <p>According to 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref37">Y&#x00e1;&#x00f1;ez De Aldecoa and G&#x00f3;mez-Trigueros (2022)</xref>, gamification allows students to analyze, reflect, and adjust their learning strategies. Thus, the relationship between gamification and metacognition can be understood through constructivist and self-regulated learning theories. Gamified environments promote active engagement and self-monitoring, which are the essential components of metacognitive processes. For instance, when learners face gamified challenges that provide immediate feedback, they are encouraged to reflect on their strategies, thereby reinforcing their metacognitive processes (planning, monitoring, and evaluation).</p>
            <p>Despite this evidence, the implementation of gamification in educational institutions has hardly been explored, particularly regarding the analysis and study of its psychological and pedagogical frames, as well as its specific effect on the development of metacognition. This systematic review examined the use of gamification to strengthen metacognition with an emphasis on its pedagogical implementation.</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec6">
            <title>2. Materials and Methods</title>
            <p>This study was developed following the PRISMA model guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses) (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref25">Moher et al., 2009</xref>) publications indexed between January 2019 to November 2024 focusing on the relationship between gamification and metacognitive processes in educational contexts were selected; the objective was to answer the following research questions:</p>
            <disp-quote>
                <p>RQ1. What is the relationship between gamification use and metacognitive processes?</p>
                <p>RQ2. What theoretical frameworks support the use of gamification in fostering the development of metacognitive processes in educational contexts?</p>
                <p>RQ3. How is gamification related to the development of higher-order thinking skills in the higher education and educational contexts?</p>
            </disp-quote>
            <p>The search strategy was implemented using two databases: Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). A systematic search was conducted in these databases using the following search equation on November 2
                <sup>nd</sup>, 2024, covering publications from 2019 to 2024: only peer-reviewed, open-access, full-text academic articles written in English or Spanish were considered. The full-search equations are presented in 
                <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">
Table 1</xref>.</p>
            <table-wrap id="T1" orientation="portrait" position="float">
                <label>
Table 1. </label>
                <caption>
                    <title>Search equation result.</title>
                </caption>
                <table content-type="article-table" frame="hsides">
                    <thead>
                        <tr>
                            <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Search equation</th>
                            <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">WoS</th>
                            <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Scopus</th>
                            <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">
Total</th>
                        </tr>
                    </thead>
                    <tbody>
                        <tr>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">(Gamification) AND (Education) AND (&#x201c;Cognitive Ability&#x201d; OR Metacognition or Awareness)</td>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">203</td>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">165</td>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">368</td>
                        </tr>
                    </tbody>
                </table>
                <table-wrap-foot>
                    <p>

                        <bold>

                            <italic toggle="yes">Note:</italic>
</bold> Own elaboration. </p>
                    <p>This table presents the search equation applied in Web of Science and Scopus, along with the number of records retrieved from each database during the initial identification phase of the systematic review.</p>
                </table-wrap-foot>
            </table-wrap>
            <p>The search yielded 368 documents (203 WoS and 165 Scopus). Subsequently, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, as detailed in 
                <xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">
Table 2</xref>, considering aspects such as the year of publication, type of document, access to full text, thematic relevance in relation to the research questions, lack of metacognitive focus, lack of gamification in an educational context, and absence of full text access.</p>
            <table-wrap id="T2" orientation="portrait" position="float">
                <label>
Table 2. </label>
                <caption>
                    <title>Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the systematic review.</title>
                </caption>
                <table content-type="article-table" frame="hsides">
                    <thead>
                        <tr>
                            <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Criteria</th>
                            <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Inclusion</th>
                            <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">
Exclusion</th>
                        </tr>
                    </thead>
                    <tbody>
                        <tr>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Year of publication</td>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">2019-2024</td>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Before 2019</td>
                        </tr>
                        <tr>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Type of document</td>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Scientific articles</td>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Doctoral theses, book chapters</td>
                        </tr>
                        <tr>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Access</td>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Open access</td>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Inaccessible documents</td>
                        </tr>
                        <tr>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Relevance</td>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Answer at least two questions</td>
                            <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Answer only one question</td>
                        </tr>
                    </tbody>
                </table>
                <table-wrap-foot>
                    <p>

                        <bold>

                            <italic toggle="yes">Note:</italic>
</bold> Own elaboration. </p>
                    <p>This table summarizes the criteria used to determine the eligibility of studies, detailing the conditions required for inclusion and the reasons studies were excluded during the screening and full-text assessment phases.</p>
                </table-wrap-foot>
            </table-wrap>
            <p>The study was performed by two independent reviewers who screened titles, abstracts, and keywords based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All records were screened by two reviewers during all the phases of the selection process. Discrepancies were discussed between the reviewers regarding the inclusion or exclusion of studies, and resolved by consensus. A third reviewer was not required.</p>
            <p>The selection process was structured in three phases, according to the PRISMA model:</p>
            <p>

                <bold>Identification:</bold> A total of 368 documents were retrieved from the two databases using the search equation, of which 115 duplicate records were removed, leaving 253 documents for the next phase.</p>
            <p>

                <bold>Screening:</bold> A preliminary review of titles, abstracts, and keywords was conducted by applying thematic relevance criteria; 181 articles were excluded in this phase to avoid directly addressing research questions.</p>
            <p>

                <bold>Deep reading:</bold> The remaining seventy-two articles were analyzed in a matrix. In this stage, aspects such as the theoretical framework, applied methodology, results, main findings, and relevance of the study&#x2019;s questions were analyzed. During this phase, one article was excluded after verifying that it had been reported as plagiarized, because it was not part of the corresponding database. The exclusion criteria were ethical and scientific considerations were excluded from this study. Seventy-one final studies were included in the thematic analysis.</p>
            <p>
                <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f1">
Figure 1</xref> presents a PRISMA flow diagram summarizing the study-selection process.</p>
            <fig fig-type="figure" id="f1" orientation="portrait" position="float">
                <label>
Figure 1. </label>
                <caption>
                    <title>Flow diagram of the selection process according to the PRISMA model.</title>
                    <p>This figure illustrates the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of studies following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, showing the number of records identified, excluded, and retained for the final analysis.</p>
                </caption>
                <graphic id="gr1" orientation="portrait" position="float" xlink:href="https://f1000research-files.f1000.com/manuscripts/190917/7a4e10fa-7f50-4945-a6c5-e8316b0968eb_figure1.gif"/>
            </fig>
            <p>Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers using a predefined data-extraction matrix developed in Excel. The following samples were extracted from each study: general bibliographic information, study-level metadata, methodological characteristics, gamification-related variables, metacognition-related variables, theoretical frameworks, higher-order cognitive skills, relevance to each research question, and main conclusions extracted from each study. These items ensured a detailed and comparable extraction across all studies, supporting transparency and the synthesis process.</p>
            <p>The risk of bias in the studies was evaluated using criteria adapted from qualitative evidence. Two reviewers evaluated each study for clarity of objectives, suitability of design, transparency, rigor of analysis, and ethical considerations. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. Similarly, no data conversion was required because the qualitative nature of the synthesis and publication bias could not be statistically evaluated, owing to the absence of quantitative synthesis.</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec7" sec-type="results">
            <title>3. Results</title>
            <p>The results were presented based on the answers and findings obtained in relation to the research questions.</p>
            <sec id="sec8">
                <title>RQ1. What is the relationship between gamification and the development of metacognitive processes?</title>
                <p>The findings show a meaningful relationship between the gamification process and the development of metacognitive processes such as monitoring and self-regulation of learning. 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">Antonaci et al. (2019)</xref>, 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">Goddiksen et al. (2024)</xref>, and 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref24">Mei and Yang (2019)</xref> agree that elements of gamification such as immediate feedback, rewards, challenges, and autonomy foster critical reflection on learning and enhance students&#x2019; awareness of their cognitive performance.</p>
                <p>According to 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">Edo Agust&#x00ed;n (2023)</xref>, gamification generates favorable conditions for the construction of meaningful learning by promoting increased engagement with instructional content. This interaction is not merely superficial; by integrating strategies such as feedback, students can analyze their decisions and consciously correct errors, thereby enhancing critical reflection and logical thinking (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">Hwang et al., 2024</xref>). However, this effect enables learners to move beyond unstructured trials and error dynamics are often observed in poorly designed gamified experiences.</p>
                <p>An example of this is provided by 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref38">Zhao et al. (2024)</xref>, who emphasized that the use of augmented reality in gamified environments fosters reflection on one&#x2019;s own learning, which in turn increases confidence in the use of technology. From this perspective, it can be stated that gamification activates internal self-regulation mechanisms, as it enables students to assess their progress, identify errors, set goals, and adjust cognitive strategies. This contributes to the development of personalized educational experiences and encourages self-assessment as an active component of the learning process.</p>
                <p>Similarly, 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">Be&#x00e7;a 
                        <italic toggle="yes">et al.</italic> (2022)</xref> emphasized that the appropriate integration of game-based content enables students to achieve meaningful learning outcomes, such as winning, losing, and receiving feedback, which increases their awareness of the learning process. From this perspective, gamification extends beyond motivation and acts as a mediator in reflective thinking. Other studies, such as that of 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">C&#x00e1;ceres Reche et al. (2022)</xref>, have demonstrated how games with reward systems promote processes such as planning and monitoring. Similarly, 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">Reche 
                        <italic toggle="yes">et al.</italic> (2022)</xref> highlight the academic, emotional, and social benefits of gamification. Emotionally, it enhances students&#x2019; motivation and interest in task completion while socially emphasizing its contribution to collaborative work by fostering environments that stimulate self-regulated learning.</p>
                <p>Several studies, including 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">Manshoven and Gillabel (2021)</xref> and 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref29">Qiao (2024)</xref>, indicate that gamified processes are widely related to emotional abilities such as autonomy, self-efficacy, and competence, which can be developed through well-designed gamification. 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">Dong et al. (2024)</xref> highlighted that educational games that stimulate planning and problem solving are useful for consolidating significant and reflective learning.</p>
                <p>In general, review studies such as those by 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">Goddiksen et al. (2024)</xref> and 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref31">Rosli et al. (2019)</xref> agreed that gamification enhances cognitive structures and fosters the development of factual knowledge, including memory and the acquisition of critical application skills in real-world scenarios. This reinforces the role of gamification as a pedagogical process that facilitates activation and enhancement of metacognitive processes.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec9">
                <title>RQ2. What theoretical frameworks support the use of gamification to foster the development of metacognitive processes in educational contexts?</title>
                <p>The literature review identified three fundamental theoretical categories that supported the frameworks used to explain the relationship between gamification and metacognitive processes. These categories are linked to learning methods, psychological theories, and underlying cognitive processes involved in teaching and learning. Together, these dimensions offer a comprehensive approach to understanding how gamification influences the development of metacognition in educational contexts by integrating a theoretical-practical perspective.</p>
                <p>
                    <xref ref-type="table" rid="T3">
Table 3</xref> summarizes the findings associated with each category, as reported in the analyzed studies. This quantitative perspective helps to identify the most commonly used foundations to justify the incorporation of gamification as a facilitator for developing the metacognitive process.</p>
                <table-wrap id="T3" orientation="portrait" position="float">
                    <label>
Table 3. </label>
                    <caption>
                        <title>Theoretical frameworks supporting the use of gamification in educational contexts.</title>
                    </caption>
                    <table content-type="article-table" frame="hsides">
                        <thead>
                            <tr>
                                <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Theoretical frameworks</th>
                                <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">
Associated categories</th>
                                <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">
Articles</th>
                                <th align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">
Percentage</th>
                            </tr>
                        </thead>
                        <tbody>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="2" valign="top">
                                    <bold>Learning Methodologies</bold>
</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Game-Based Learning (GBL)</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">43</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">60.6%</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Not specified</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">28</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">39.4%</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="4" valign="top">
                                    <bold>Psychological Theories of Learning</bold>
</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Self-Determination Theory</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">3</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">4.1%</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Self-Regulated Learning Theory</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">6</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">8.5%</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Piaget&#x2019;s Theory of Cognitive Development</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">1</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">1.4%</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Not specified</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">61</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">86%</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="4" valign="top">
                                    <bold>Cognitive Processes</bold>
</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Self-Regulated Learning</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">7</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">9.9%</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Meta-Reasoning Model</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">5</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">7%</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Metacognition (explicitly mentioned)</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">1</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">1.4%</td>
                            </tr>
                            <tr>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">Not specified</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">58</td>
                                <td align="left" colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top">81.7%</td>
                            </tr>
                        </tbody>
                    </table>
                    <table-wrap-foot>
                        <p>

                            <bold>

                                <italic toggle="yes">Note.</italic>
</bold> Own elaboration. </p>
                        <p>This table synthesizes the theoretical categories identified across the reviewed studies learning methodologies, psychological theories, and cognitive processes and reports the number and percentage of articles associated with each category.</p>
                    </table-wrap-foot>
                </table-wrap>
                <p>Regarding the methodologies used to implement gamification processes that foster metacognitive development, the literature points to Game-Based Learning (GBL) as the predominant approach. GBL was present in 60.6% of the articles analyzed, while the remaining percentage did not mention a specific methodology. Game-Based Learning is based on the incorporation of game dynamics within educational contexts with clearly defined learning objectives. According to 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref40">Leal Uhlig et al. (2023)</xref>, technology plays a key role in GBL environments as it facilitates immersive experiences that promote student engagement and generate positive impacts on the development of critical thinking. Likewise, 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">Davis (2022)</xref> and 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">Hwang 
                        <italic toggle="yes">et al.</italic> (2024)</xref> emphasized that the game-based approach increases intrinsic motivation and strengthens metacognitive processes, such as planning, monitoring, and self-reflection, by integrating disciplinary content with dynamic structures that stimulate conscious decision-making and the continuous evaluation of learning.</p>
                <p>
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">Davis (2022)</xref> explained that serious game-based learning is supported by Piaget&#x2019;s cognitive theory, which integrates playful elements into instructional content, thereby improving motivation and learning. Game-based learning contributes to the development of cognitive processes such as reading comprehension, attention, and memory by combining cognitive theory, instructional content, and game elements that leverage the motivational and immersive nature of games to improve learning outcomes. In terms of metacognition, serious games promote planning, which is understood as the learner&#x00b4;s ability to anticipate actions and set goals before starting a task, and monitoring, which involves constantly reviewing and evaluating one&#x00b4;s own performance and understanding during the activity. These dynamics require reflection on the decisions made to allow for the adjustment of strategies based on the feedback received, thereby strengthening self-regulation of learning.</p>
                <p>Game-based learning, supported by learning theories such as constructivism, favors the development of metacognitive processes by creating interactive environments that foster self-reflection and learning regulation. According to 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">Hwang 
                        <italic toggle="yes">et al.</italic> (2024)</xref>, GBL facilitates problem solving through active experimentation, allowing students to analyze decisions and receive immediate feedback. This process of analysis and decision making strengthens self-regulation and metacognitive awareness, as it requires constant evaluation of their strategies and adjustment according to the results obtained.</p>
                <p>
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">Dong 
                        <italic toggle="yes">et al.</italic> (2024)</xref> highlighted its application to students with cognitive disabilities, emphasizing that gamification improves skills such as memory, attention, reasoning, and planning. These findings show that game-based learning promotes the development of metacognitive strategies, such as organization, adaptation to new situations, and reflective decision-making, all of which are essential for autonomy in inclusive educational environments.</p>
                <p>The literature review makes it possible to identify that, from a psychological perspective, three fundamental theories support the learning process: the theory of self-regulated learning, self-determination theory, and Piaget&#x2019;s theory of cognitive development. The first was the theory of self-regulated learning, which was presented in 8.5% of the reviewed articles. This theory is presented as a psychological foundation, as it analyzes how students plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning process. In gamified contexts, these processes are enhanced by dynamics such as immediate feedback, personalized challenges, and progress monitoring (Kim et al. 2021, as cited in 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">Choi et al., 2022</xref>). According to 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22">Marks et al. (2024)</xref>, gamification fosters a self-regulated mind-set by facilitating the identification of knowledge gaps and strategic adjustments through constructive feedback.</p>
                <p>
                    <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f2">
Figure 2</xref> illustrates the distribution of the articles according to the identified theoretical frameworks.</p>
                <fig fig-type="figure" id="f2" orientation="portrait" position="float">
                    <label>
Figure 2. </label>
                    <caption>
                        <title>Articles based on theories.</title>
                        <p>This figure presents the number and percentage of studies in the systematic review classified by their underlying theoretical foundation, highlighting the predominance of studies that did not explicitly mention a guiding theory.</p>
                    </caption>
                    <graphic id="gr2" orientation="portrait" position="float" xlink:href="https://f1000research-files.f1000.com/manuscripts/190917/7a4e10fa-7f50-4945-a6c5-e8316b0968eb_figure2.gif"/>
                </fig>
                <p>The second theory identified is Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which was presented in 4.2% of the articles analyzed. This theory, proposed by (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">Deci &amp; Ryan, 2000</xref>), emphasizes the importance of intrinsic motivation, which arises from interest in and enjoyment of the activity itself and is essential for promoting meaningful learning. SDT states that this form of motivation is activated when three basic psychological needs are satisfied: autonomy, understood as the student&#x2019;s ability to make decisions and act with a sense of regulation; competence, referring to the feeling of effectiveness when facing challenges; and social relatedness, which implies a feeling of connection with others and establishment of meaningful relationships (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref30">Qiao et al., 2022</xref>).</p>
                <p>In gamified environments, these needs are activated through specific mechanics, such as avatar customization (autonomy), progressive difficulty levels and achievements (competence), and collaborative interactions (relatedness). Satisfying these needs enhances students&#x2019; engagement and willingness to reflect on their learning, thereby promoting metacognitive processes (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">Calder&#x00f3;n et al. 2024</xref>; 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref36">Wan et al. 2021</xref>; 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref32">Siala 
                        <italic toggle="yes">et al.</italic> 2019</xref>).</p>
                <p>The third theory is Piaget&#x2019;s Theory of Cognitive Development, which was cited in 1.4% of the reviewed articles. This provides a fundamental framework for understanding how gamification can favor both cognitive development and metacognitive processes in educational settings. Piaget postulated that children learn through evolutionary stages related to functional, constructive, symbolic, and rule-based play, which plays a decisive role in the development of emerging cognitive abilities (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">Dong et al. 2024</xref>). Studies, such as those by 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">Dong 
                        <italic toggle="yes">et al.</italic> (2024)</xref>, have designed gamified experiences for children with cognitive impairment, showing that adapting playful mechanics to their level of development through positive feedback activities and progressive challenges improves functions such as memory and reasoning.</p>
                <p>Likewise, 
                    <italic toggle="yes">Piaget&#x2019;s Theory of Cognitive Development</italic> posits that knowledge is built through active interaction between the subject and environment. Gamification, by structuring playful dynamics with learning objectives, allows students to progressively construct and reconstruct their knowledge. These findings extend to the development of metacognitive skills, since gamification, by integrating reflective strategies, such as self-assessment journals and evaluation spaces, promotes awareness of one&#x2019;s own learning processes. For example, students in gamified environments report their ability to monitor progress, adjust strategies, and reflect on their understanding (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref33">Trigueros et al., 2024</xref>).</p>
                <p>In contrast, within the psychological theories underlying the analysis of gamified processes in relation to metacognition, three main approaches were identified: self-regulated learning, metacognition, and the meta-reasoning model. 
                    <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f3">
Figure 3</xref> shows the articles based on a single cognitive process.</p>
                <fig fig-type="figure" id="f3" orientation="portrait" position="float">
                    <label>
Figure 3. </label>
                    <caption>
                        <title>Articles based on cognitive processes.</title>
                        <p>This figure shows the number and percentage of studies categorized according to the cognitive or metacognitive processes addressed, emphasizing the limited explicit focus on metacognitive frameworks.</p>
                    </caption>
                    <graphic id="gr3" orientation="portrait" position="float" xlink:href="https://f1000research-files.f1000.com/manuscripts/190917/7a4e10fa-7f50-4945-a6c5-e8316b0968eb_figure3.gif"/>
                </fig>
                <p>Self-regulated learning is recognized as an effective strategy for mastering knowledge and improving attitudes toward learning (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref38">Zhao et al., 2024</xref>). This perspective emphasizes students&#x2019; management of their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors to achieve their goals, thus promoting an active role through planning, monitoring, and adjusting personal strategies. Self-regulated learning appears in 9.9% of the studies, reaffirming its role as a bridge between gamification and the development of metacognitive processes.</p>
                <p>Similarly, self-regulated learning enables learners to develop self-determination and reach a state of active awareness in their activities, characterized by important levels of concentration and motivation. Studies such as those by 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">Manshoven and Gillabel (2021)</xref>; 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref33">Trigueros et al. (2024)</xref> confirm that gamification, by designing environments that meet these fundamental needs, fosters self-determination and active engagement with learning tasks. This framework explains how elements such as immediate feedback systems, level progression, and collaborative dynamics motivate and create ideal conditions for the development of metacognitive processes, by turning students into conscious agents of their learning processes.</p>
                <p>Another cognitive process identified was the meta-reasoning model, which was cited in 7% of the articles. This model focuses on monitoring mental processes during decision making, in contrast to metacognition, which supervises the entire learning process. According to (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">Kleitman &amp; Narciss, 2019</xref>), meta-reasoning examines how individuals assess the difficulty of a task, and how these evaluations determine the amount of time, effort, and cognitive resources they are willing to invest in. Gamified contexts are applied through games that require problem-solving, error analysis, and strategic reflection. These dynamics enable students to make decisions and evaluate tasks, thereby contributing to the development of self-regulation and effort control (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">Juan-L&#x00e1;zaro &amp; Area-Moreira, 2021</xref>). On the other hand, metacognition as an explicit construct was mentioned in only 1.4% of the articles, suggesting that, although it is often the ultimate goal of gamified interventions, it is frequently addressed in an indirect or implicit manner.</p>
                <p>In summary, the analyzed theoretical frameworks support the use of gamification as a mediator for developing metacognition in educational contexts. This perspective emphasizes the internal processes of learning, such as motivation, self-regulation, and reasoning, in line with 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">Juan-L&#x00e1;zaro and Area-Moreira (2021)</xref>. In a pedagogical framework, the focus is on designing meaningful student-centered experiences. Both perspectives agree that beyond motivating, gamification promotes conscious reflection on learning, which is essential for fostering autonomous and meaningful learning (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref35">Voreopoulou et al., 2024</xref>).</p>
            </sec>
            <sec id="sec10">
                <title>RQ3. How is gamification related to the development of higher-order thinking skills in educational contexts?</title>
                <p>The reviewed studies establish a significant relationship between gamification and the development of Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in educational settings (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">Laksana et al., 2024</xref>). These skills encompass processes such as analyzing, evaluating, creating, problem-solving, and decision-making. This review highlights problem solving, critical thinking, and decision-making as the most prominent (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref29">Qiao, 2024</xref>).</p>
                <p>According to 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">Edo Agust&#x00ed;n (2023)</xref>, the relationship between the use of gamification and the development of metacognitive processes in learning is enhanced when gamification incorporates explicit mechanisms that promote conscious reflection on the learning process as it offers immediate feedback and invites students to face real situations that demand complex cognitive processes. Likewise, gamification promotes the development of higher-order skills by going beyond the repetition of knowledge; it favors analysis, synthesis, critical, reflective, logical thinking, problem-solving, and the ability to create (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">Hsbollah &amp; Rosli, 2022</xref>). 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">Antonaci 
                        <italic toggle="yes">et al.</italic> (2019)</xref> indicated that gamified environments promote higher-order thinking skills by requiring demanding cognitive abilities such as problem-solving, decision-making, and critical analysis, in challenging contexts that stimulate deep reflection.</p>
                <p>However, the development of higher-order thinking skills is consciously and effectively presented when gamification is implemented through digital technologies, accompanied by intentional instructional design. Thus, elements such as immediate feedback, cognitive challenges, and the possibility of trial and error can activate advanced cognitive processes (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">Hwang et al., 2024</xref>). According to 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref35">Voreopoulou 
                        <italic toggle="yes">et al.</italic> (2024)</xref>, the role of emerging technologies such as augmented reality shows that gamified activities involve exploration, analysis, and evaluation, which makes higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) more explicit in the learning process. Similarly, 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">Calder&#x00f3;n et al. (2024)</xref> affirmed that solving challenges requires the application of thinking and logical skills (cognitive challenges), and often overcoming challenges that depend on solving previous situations, which implies a progression in the complexity of thinking.</p>
                <p>Based on these findings, 
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref26">Oliva et al. (2021)</xref> pointed out that strategic decision making is a constant demand in gamified environments, in which students must define paths to achieve objectives. When gamification and metacognition are articulated, students make decisions, think about strategies, evaluate different options, and learn from their responses. Similarly, they self-assess their processes, which promotes critical thinking and planning skills.</p>
                <p>In general, the relationship between gamification and metacognition is directly associated with the development of higher-order skills (
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref28">Pirta-Dreimane et al., 2024</xref>), since both approaches promote problem-solving, critical thinking, self-regulation, planning, and monitoring, especially through challenging scenarios that stimulate high-level thinking.</p>
            </sec>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec11" sec-type="discussion">
            <title>4. Discussion</title>
            <p>This systematic review explored the existing literature in relation to the influence of gamification on the development of metacognitive processes in educational settings; the analysis of the included studies shows a significant relationship between the use of gamification and the strengthening of metacognitive skills, especially those associated with self-regulation, planning, monitoring, and evaluation of one&#x2019;s own learning (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">Garc&#x00ed;a-L&#x00f3;pez et al., 2023</xref>; 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref27">Peuters et al., 2024</xref>).</p>
            <p>According to the reviewed studies, gamification increases students&#x2019; commitment to learning by creating their own routes to reaching goals through metacognitive processes, and it is emphasized that gamification promotes the application of knowledge and the ability to face complex cognitive processes (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref28">Pirta-Dreimane et al., 2024</xref>). Elements, such as feedback, progressive challenges, immediate rewards, and constant reflection stand out. These stimulate metacognitive processes and allow the establishment of learning objectives and strategies in a structured and conscious manner (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">Blain et al. 2022</xref>; 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref38">Zhao et al. 2024</xref>).</p>
            <p>Similarly, the incorporation of gamified processes into educational settings has proven to be an effective pathway for fostering motivation, engagement, critical thinking, and the awareness of cognitive processes. 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">Leit&#x00e3;o et al. (2022)</xref> and 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">Antonaci 
                    <italic toggle="yes">et al.</italic> (2019)</xref> showed that the integration of pedagogical content through the application of gamification principles, such as avatars, rewards, and immediate feedback, strengthens intrinsic motivation and fosters curiosity, which are the key aspects of meaningful and self-regulated learning. Critical perspectives on the use of gamification were also identified. As noted by 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">Juan-L&#x00e1;zaro &amp; Area-Moreira (2021)</xref> poorly structured gamified strategies, or those excessively focused on point accumulation, may promote a trial-and-error dynamic without deep reflection, thereby limiting the development of metacognitive processes by prioritizing immediate outcomes over conscious analysis and regulation of learning.</p>
            <p>Likewise, the discussion is framed within explicit theoretical foundations. These findings confirm that gamification, when grounded in constructivist approaches, Self-Determination Theory, and Self-Regulated Learning Theory, facilitates the activation of metacognitive strategies by fostering autonomy, intrinsic motivation, and reflection (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref30">Qiao et al., 2022</xref>). This integration demonstrates that psychological and pedagogical perspectives are essential for explaining why gamification strengthens planning, monitoring, and evaluation in the learning process.</p>
            <p>However, studies indicate that instructional design processes find a suitable gamification scenario to evaluate the relationship between goal setting, the use of badges, scoreboards, missions, and cognitive challenges, and factors related to metacognition, such as awareness, self-assessment, goal setting, and decision-making, as scholars do not support the idea that gamification inherently generates metacognitive processes (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">Juan-L&#x00e1;zaro &amp; Area-Moreira, 2021</xref>; 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref23">McGowan et al. 2023</xref>; 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref30">Qiao et al. 2022</xref>).</p>
            <p>In addition, the reviewed literature suggests that gamification fosters the development of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) through progressive challenges, problem-solving dynamics, and immediate feedback, as students engage in processes of analysis, evaluation, and creation, which are characteristic of HOTS (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref29">Qiao, 2024</xref>). A positive relationship between gamification and metacognition can be inferred if metacognitive awareness is related to the use of HOTS.</p>
            <p>Gamification can thus become a key element in the development of pedagogical strategies with high potential for promoting metacognitive processes, which is why its implementation should be supported by explanatory and theoretical frameworks aligned with clear educational purposes. The pedagogical value of gamification lies in its ability to generate reflective learning experiences as students are required to consciously and autonomously engage in planning, monitoring, and evaluating their cognitive processes. Through the activation of self-regulation mechanisms, the stimulation of critical reflection, and the strengthening of higher-order thinking skills, students can incorporate dynamics of autonomous and meaningful learning (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">C&#x00e1;ceres Reche et al., 2022</xref>; 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref39">Hidayat et al., 2024</xref>; 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref38">Zhao et al., 2024</xref>).</p>
            <p>One limitation of this study was that the analysis was restricted to only two databases, which may have excluded relevant studies from other bibliographic sources. Furthermore, only open-access articles were reviewed, indicating a potential publication bias. Therefore, future systematic reviews are recommended to broaden the scope of the search by including other recognized databases as well as non-open-access articles.</p>
            <p>Finally, the review shows that gamification should articulate three complementary axes: first, the learning methodologies that guide its implementation; second, the psychological foundations that explain the mechanisms of motivation, autonomy, and student engagement; and third, the metacognitive processes that directly support planning, monitoring, and evaluation of learning are related to these mechanisms. This connection between theory and practice reinforces the idea that gamification should be considered from a didactic perspective with strong potential to foster higher-order thinking skills (HOTS).</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec12">
            <title>5. Conclusions and limitations</title>
            <p>The findings of this study allow us to conclude that gamification, when implemented in a structured manner and supported by learning theories, constitutes a process that fosters the development of metacognitive skills (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">Garc&#x00ed;a-L&#x00f3;pez et al., 2023</xref>; 
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref28">Pirta-Dreimane et al., 2024</xref>). The reviewed studies showed that the incorporation of elements such as feedback, rewards, progressive challenges, and autonomy promotes skills such as planning, self-regulation, monitoring, and the evaluation of learning (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">Edo Agust&#x00ed;n, 2023</xref>). These skills are activated in gamified contexts, which in turn stimulates student engagement and conscious decision-making throughout the learning process.</p>
            <p>This study also contributes to the educational field by synthesizing recent evidence and proposing an integrated perspective that links the analysis of the impact of gamification on the development of metacognitive processes by considering psychological learning theories, learning methodologies (especially GBL), and the development of metacognitive processes.</p>
            <p>Similarly, this study highlights the need to understand its application in education from perspectives that integrate both the conceptual and procedural aspects. At the conceptual level, this study indicates that gamification should be understood based on a set of psychological theories that explain, on the one hand, what learning is and how it occurs, and, on the other, which cognitive processes are involved. At the procedural level, this study emphasizes the importance of approaching gamification from a didactic perspective by addressing questions related to the role of specific tools in teaching and learning content, skills, and competencies, as reflected in game-based learning (GBL). The results warned that the effectiveness of gamification depends on instructional design, as it is through design that principles of gamification can be effectively applied to foster the development of metacognitive skills.</p>
            <p>Finally, this review reveals that gamification and metacognition have not yet been fully studied in educational contexts. It also underscores the need for a broader evaluation of the existing literature, given that the study was conducted solely with open-access articles from Scopus and Web of Science, which may have restricted the inclusion of other relevant studies.</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec13">
            <title>Ethics and consent</title>
            <p>Ethical approval and consent were not required for this study, because it was a systematic review of previously published studies that did not involve human participants.</p>
        </sec>
    </body>
    <back>
        <sec id="sec16" sec-type="data-availability">
            <title>Data availability</title>
            <p>All datasets supporting the findings of this systematic review are openly available in the Zenodo repository at 
                <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17626131">

                    <bold>https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17626131</bold>
</ext-link> (
                <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref34">Varela Quiroga &amp; Buitrago Ropero, 2025</xref>). The repository contains the PRISMA 2020 Checklist and the PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram. All materials are provided under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal license. These files ensure full reproducibility of the review methodology and comply with the F1000Research open data policy.</p>
        </sec>
        <ref-list>
            <title>References</title>
            <ref id="ref1">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Antonaci</surname>
                            <given-names>A</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Klemke</surname>
                            <given-names>R</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Specht</surname>
                            <given-names>M</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>The effects of gamification in online learning environments: A systematic literature review.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Informatics.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2019</year>;<volume>6</volume>(<issue>3</issue>):<fpage>32</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/informatics6030032</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref2">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Ask</surname>
                            <given-names>TF</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Knox</surname>
                            <given-names>BJ</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Lugo</surname>
                            <given-names>RG</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Gamification as a neuroergonomic approach to improving interpersonal situational awareness in cyber defense.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Frontiers in Education.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2023</year>;<volume>8</volume>:<fpage>988043</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/feduc.2023.988043</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref3">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Be&#x00e7;a</surname>
                            <given-names>P</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Aresta</surname>
                            <given-names>M</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Santos</surname>
                            <given-names>R</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Students as game creators: Easing the game construction process by using a toolkit to game design.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Interaction Design and Architecture(s).</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2022</year>;<volume>53</volume>:<fpage>128</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>143</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.55612/s-5002-053-006</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref4">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Blain</surname>
                            <given-names>DO</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Standage</surname>
                            <given-names>M</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Curran</surname>
                            <given-names>T</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Physical education in a post-COVID world: A blended-gamified approach.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2022</year>;<volume>28</volume>(<issue>3</issue>):<fpage>757</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>776</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/1356336X221080372</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref5">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>C&#x00e1;ceres Reche</surname>
                            <given-names>MP</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Ramos Navas-Parejo</surname>
                            <given-names>M</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Santos Villalba</surname>
                            <given-names>MJ</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Active methodologies and ICT to prevent bullying: Main study background and contributions.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2022</year>;<volume>18</volume>:<fpage>151</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>169</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.46661/ijeri.5222</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref6">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Choi</surname>
                            <given-names>E</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Choi</surname>
                            <given-names>Y</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Park</surname>
                            <given-names>N</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Development of blockchain learning game-themed education program targeting elementary students based on ASSURE model.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Sustainability.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2022</year>;<volume>14</volume>(<issue>7</issue>):<fpage>3771</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/su14073771</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref7">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Davis</surname>
                            <given-names>JP</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Formal rules and rules as reasoning-in-action: Playing games with reality in science education.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2022</year>;<volume>17</volume>(<issue>4</issue>):<fpage>1081</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>1088</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s11422-022-10134-3</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref8">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Deci</surname>
                            <given-names>EL</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Ryan</surname>
                            <given-names>RM</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>The &#x201c;what&#x201d; and &#x201c;why&#x201d; of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Psychol. Inq.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2000</year>;<volume>11</volume>(<issue>4</issue>):<fpage>227</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>268</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref9">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Dong</surname>
                            <given-names>X</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Liang</surname>
                            <given-names>H</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Ding</surname>
                            <given-names>X</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Enhancing children&#x2019;s cognitive skills: An experimental study on virtual reality-based gamified educational practices.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Educ. Inf. Technol.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>;<volume>29</volume>(<issue>6</issue>):<fpage>7569</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>7594</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s10639-023-12075-y</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref10">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Edo Agust&#x00ed;n</surname>
                            <given-names>E</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Gamificaci&#x00f3;n: Metodolog&#x00ed;a para el desarrollo de competencias espec&#x00ed;ficas y transversales en Magisterio.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Educar.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2023</year>;<volume>59</volume>(<issue>2</issue>):<fpage>333</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>349</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5565/rev/educar.1768</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref11">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Garc&#x00ed;a-L&#x00f3;pez</surname>
                            <given-names>IM</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Acosta-Gonzaga</surname>
                            <given-names>E</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Ruiz-Ledesma</surname>
                            <given-names>EF</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Investigating the impact of gamification on student motivation, engagement, and performance.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Educ. Sci.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2023</year>;<volume>13</volume>(<issue>8</issue>):<fpage>813</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/educsci13080813</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref12">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Gkintoni</surname>
                            <given-names>E</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Vantaraki</surname>
                            <given-names>F</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Skoulidi</surname>
                            <given-names>C</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Promoting physical and mental health among children and adolescents via gamification: A conceptual systematic review.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Behav. Sci.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>;<volume>14</volume>(<issue>2</issue>):<fpage>102</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/bs14020102</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref13">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Goddiksen</surname>
                            <given-names>MP</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Allard</surname>
                            <given-names>A</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Armond</surname>
                            <given-names>ACV</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Integrity games: An online teaching tool on academic integrity for undergraduate students.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Int. J. Educ. Integr.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>;<volume>20</volume>(<issue>1</issue>):<fpage>7</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s40979-024-00154-7</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref14">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Guerrero Calder&#x00f3;n</surname>
                            <given-names>J</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Tasc&#x00f3;n Fern&#x00e1;ndez</surname>
                            <given-names>MT</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Fern&#x00e1;ndez Gonz&#x00e1;lez</surname>
                            <given-names>O</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Implementaci&#x00f3;n de un escape room educativo para la ense&#x00f1;anza de sostenibilidad ambiental en Econom&#x00ed;a de Bachillerato.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">European Public &amp; Social Innovation Review.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>;<volume>9</volume>:<fpage>1</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>21</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31637/epsir-2024-303</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref39">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Hidayat</surname>
                            <given-names>H</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Mohd Isa</surname>
                            <given-names>MR</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Tanucan</surname>
                            <given-names>JC</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
                    </person-group>:
                    <article-title>Metacognitive awareness determination through technology: A problem-solving Android gamification app.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>;<volume>14</volume>(<issue>8</issue>):<fpage>1099</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>1108</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.8.2138</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref15">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Hsbollah</surname>
                            <given-names>HM</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Rosli</surname>
                            <given-names>K</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Creating meaningful learning and improving students&#x2019; knowledge using game-based learning in higher education.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">World Journal of English Language.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2022</year>;<volume>12</volume>(<issue>2</issue>):<fpage>257</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5430/wjel.v12n2p257</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref16">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Hwang</surname>
                            <given-names>G-J</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Huang</surname>
                            <given-names>H</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Chen</surname>
                            <given-names>H-Y</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Promoting students&#x2019; civic literacy and positive learning behaviors: A supportive feedback-based decision-making gaming approach.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Educ. Inf. Technol.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>;<volume>30</volume>(<issue>1</issue>):<fpage>189</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>227</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s10639-024-12839-0</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref17">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Juan-L&#x00e1;zaro</surname>
                            <given-names>O</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Area-Moreira</surname>
                            <given-names>M</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Gamificaci&#x00f3;n superficial en e-learning: Evidencias sobre motivaci&#x00f3;n y autorregulaci&#x00f3;n.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educaci&#x00f3;n.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2021</year>;<volume>62</volume>:<fpage>146</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>181</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.12795/pixelbit.82427</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref18">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Kleitman</surname>
                            <given-names>S</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Narciss</surname>
                            <given-names>S</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Applied metacognition: Real-world applications beyond learning.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Metacogn. Learn.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2019</year>;<volume>14</volume>(<issue>3</issue>):<fpage>335</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>342</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s11409-019-09214-7</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref19">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Laksana</surname>
                            <given-names>SD</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Setyosari</surname>
                            <given-names>P</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Praherdhiono</surname>
                            <given-names>H</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>The effect of the use of digital gamification and metacognitive skills on students&#x2019; mathematics solving ability.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn).</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>;<volume>18</volume>(<issue>1</issue>):<fpage>93</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>103</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.11591/edulearn.v18i1.23672</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref40">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Leal Uhlig</surname>
                            <given-names>EF</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Garza Le&#x00f3;n</surname>
                            <given-names>C</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Cruz Vargas</surname>
                            <given-names>X</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>L&#x00eb;tt&#x00eb;ra web platform: A game-based learning approach with the use of technology for reading competence.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Front. Educ.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2023</year>;<volume>8</volume>:<fpage>1180283</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/feduc.2023.1180283</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref20">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Leit&#x00e3;o</surname>
                            <given-names>R</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Maguire</surname>
                            <given-names>M</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Turner</surname>
                            <given-names>S</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Ocean literacy gamified: A systematic evaluation of the effect of game elements on students&#x2019; learning experience.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Environ. Educ. Res.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2022</year>;<volume>28</volume>(<issue>2</issue>):<fpage>276</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>294</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/13504622.2021.1986469</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref21">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Manshoven</surname>
                            <given-names>S</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Gillabel</surname>
                            <given-names>J</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Learning through play: A serious game as a tool to support circular economy education and business model innovation.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Sustainability.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2021</year>;<volume>13</volume>(<issue>23</issue>):<fpage>13277</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/su132313277</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref22">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Marks</surname>
                            <given-names>C</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Du Plessis</surname>
                            <given-names>C</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Van Hoving</surname>
                            <given-names>DJ</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Students&#x2019; perceptions of Toxicolitaire&#x2122;&#x2014;A digital card game for medical toxicology students.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Clin. Toxicol.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>;<volume>62</volume>(<issue>1</issue>):<fpage>53</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>55</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/15563650.2024.2305127</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref23">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>McGowan</surname>
                            <given-names>N</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>L&#x00f3;pez-Serrano</surname>
                            <given-names>A</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Burgos</surname>
                            <given-names>D</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Serious games and soft skills in higher education: A case study of the design of Compete!.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Electronics.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2023</year>;<volume>12</volume>(<issue>6</issue>):<fpage>1432</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/electronics12061432</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref24">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Mei</surname>
                            <given-names>B</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Yang</surname>
                            <given-names>S</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Nurturing environmental education at the tertiary education level in China: Can mobile augmented reality and gamification help?.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Sustainability.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2019</year>;<volume>11</volume>(<issue>16</issue>):<fpage>4292</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/su11164292</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref25">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Moher</surname>
                            <given-names>D</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Liberati</surname>
                            <given-names>A</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Tetzlaff</surname>
                            <given-names>J</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Open Medicine.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2009</year>.</mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref26">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Oliva-Maza</surname>
                            <given-names>A</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Ayuso-Escuer</surname>
                            <given-names>N</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Coma-Rosello</surname>
                            <given-names>T</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Mystery of the runaway Letrabytes: Inclusive assessment of phonological awareness with tangible gamification.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnolog&#x00ed;as del Aprendizaje.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2021</year>;<volume>16</volume>(<issue>4</issue>):<fpage>424</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>432</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1109/RITA.2021.3136442</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref27">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Peuters</surname>
                            <given-names>C</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Maenhout</surname>
                            <given-names>L</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Cardon</surname>
                            <given-names>G</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>A mobile healthy lifestyle intervention to promote mental health in adolescence: A mixed-methods evaluation.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">BMC Public Health.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>;<volume>24</volume>(<issue>1</issue>):<fpage>44</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s12889-023-17260-9</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref28">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Pirta-Dreimane</surname>
                            <given-names>R</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Brilingait&#x0117;</surname>
                            <given-names>A</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Roponena</surname>
                            <given-names>E</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Try to esCAPE from cybersecurity incidents! A technology-enhanced educational approach.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Technol. Knowl. Learn.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s10758-024-09769-8</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref29">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Qiao</surname>
                            <given-names>S</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>How competitive, cooperative, and collaborative gamification impacts student learning and engagement.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Educ. Inf. Technol.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>;<volume>28</volume>:<fpage>1</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>19</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s10639-024-12345-y</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref30">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Qiao</surname>
                            <given-names>S</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Yeung</surname>
                            <given-names>SS</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Shen</surname>
                            <given-names>X</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>The effects of a gamified morphological awareness intervention on students&#x2019; cognitive, motivational, and affective outcomes.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Br. J. Educ. Technol.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2022</year>;<volume>53</volume>(<issue>4</issue>):<fpage>952</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>976</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/bjet.13178</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref31">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Rosli</surname>
                            <given-names>K</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Khairudin</surname>
                            <given-names>N</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Saat</surname>
                            <given-names>RM</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Gamification in entrepreneurship and accounting education.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2019</year>;<volume>5</volume>(<issue>3</issue>):<fpage>123</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>136</lpage>.</mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref32">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Siala</surname>
                            <given-names>H</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Kutsch</surname>
                            <given-names>E</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Jagger</surname>
                            <given-names>S</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Cultural influences moderating learners&#x2019; adoption of serious 3D games for managerial learning.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Inf. Technol. People.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2019</year>;<volume>33</volume>(<issue>2</issue>):<fpage>424</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>455</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/ITP-08-2018-0385</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref33">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Trigueros</surname>
                            <given-names>R</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Aguilar-Parra</surname>
                            <given-names>JM</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Manzano-Le&#x00f3;n</surname>
                            <given-names>A</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Emotions, motivation, and metacognition of university students in a SPOC context.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">SAGE Open.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>;<volume>14</volume>(<issue>3</issue>).
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/21582440241267365</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref34">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="data">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Varela Quiroga</surname>
                            <given-names>CV</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Buitrago Ropero</surname>
                            <given-names>ME</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <data-title>PRISMA materials gamification and metacognition systematic review.</data-title>[Data set].
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Zenodo.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2025</year>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5281/zenodo.17626131</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref35">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Voreopoulou</surname>
                            <given-names>A</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Mystakidis</surname>
                            <given-names>S</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Tsinakos</surname>
                            <given-names>A</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Augmented reality escape classroom game for deep and meaningful English language learning.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Computers.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>;<volume>13</volume>(<issue>1</issue>):<fpage>24</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/computers13010024</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref36">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Wan</surname>
                            <given-names>K</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>King</surname>
                            <given-names>V</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Chan</surname>
                            <given-names>K</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Examining flow antecedents in game-based learning to promote self-regulated learning and acceptance.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Educ. Inf. Technol.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2021</year>;<volume>26</volume>(<issue>6</issue>):<fpage>7899</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>7920</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s10639-021-10555-1</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref37">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Y&#x00e1;&#x00f1;ez De Aldecoa</surname>
                            <given-names>C</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>G&#x00f3;mez-Trigueros</surname>
                            <given-names>IM</given-names>
                        </name>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Challenges with complex situations in the teaching and learning of social sciences in initial teacher education.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Soc. Sci.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2022</year>;<volume>11</volume>(<issue>7</issue>):<fpage>295</fpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/socsci11070295</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
            <ref id="ref38">
                <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                    <person-group person-group-type="author">

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Zhao</surname>
                            <given-names>J-H</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Panjaburee</surname>
                            <given-names>P</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <name name-style="western">
                            <surname>Hwang</surname>
                            <given-names>G-J</given-names>
                        </name>

                        <etal/>
</person-group>:
                    <article-title>Effects of a self-regulated-based gamified virtual reality system on students&#x2019; English learning performance and affection.</article-title>
                    <source>

                        <italic toggle="yes">Interact. Learn. Environ.</italic>
</source>
                    <year>2024</year>;<volume>32</volume>(<issue>9</issue>):<fpage>5509</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>5536</lpage>.
                    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/10494820.2023.2219702</pub-id>
                </mixed-citation>
            </ref>
        </ref-list>
    </back>
    <sub-article article-type="reviewer-report" id="report443379">
        <front-stub>
            <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5256/f1000research.190917.r443379</article-id>
            <title-group>
                <article-title>Reviewer response for version 1</article-title>
            </title-group>
            <contrib-group>
                <contrib contrib-type="author">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Hidayanto</surname>
                        <given-names>Erry</given-names>
                    </name>
                    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="r443379a1">1</xref>
                    <role>Referee</role>
                </contrib>
                <aff id="r443379a1">
                    <label>1</label>Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, Indonesia</aff>
            </contrib-group>
            <author-notes>
                <fn fn-type="conflict">
                    <p>
                        <bold>Competing interests: </bold>No competing interests were disclosed.</p>
                </fn>
            </author-notes>
            <pub-date pub-type="epub">
                <day>21</day>
                <month>1</month>
                <year>2026</year>
            </pub-date>
            <permissions>
                <copyright-statement>Copyright: &#x00a9; 2026 Hidayanto E</copyright-statement>
                <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
                <license xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
                    <license-p>This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</license-p>
                </license>
            </permissions>
            <related-article ext-link-type="doi" id="relatedArticleReport443379" related-article-type="peer-reviewed-article" xlink:href="10.12688/f1000research.173134.1"/>
            <custom-meta-group>
                <custom-meta>
                    <meta-name>recommendation</meta-name>
                    <meta-value>approve-with-reservations</meta-value>
                </custom-meta>
            </custom-meta-group>
        </front-stub>
        <body>
            <p>1. In the introduction, substantial gaps are not yet apparent.</p>
            <p> 2. Regarding the methods, the number of reviews was unequal. Of the 253 reviewed, 181 were excluded, and 71 were analyzed until the end, resulting in a total of 252, not 253.</p>
            <p> 3. The PRISMA model guidelines refer to Moher et al. (2009), while the latest standard is PRISMA 2020.</p>
            <p> 4. The research results do not explicitly indicate that the findings address the RQ.</p>
            <p> 5. The conclusion is still a theoretical summary, not a systematic synthesis.</p>
            <p> 6. The conclusion does not reflect a pattern of evidence, but rather a causal relationship.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p>Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?</p>
            <p>Yes</p>
            <p>Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?</p>
            <p>Yes</p>
            <p>If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the &#x2018;living&#x2019; method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (&#x2018;Living Systematic Review&#x2019; or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)</p>
            <p>No</p>
            <p>Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?</p>
            <p>Yes</p>
            <p>Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?</p>
            <p>Yes</p>
            <p>Reviewer Expertise:</p>
            <p>Notes can be seen in the script</p>
            <p>I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.</p>
        </body>
        <sub-article article-type="response" id="comment15748-443379">
            <front-stub>
                <contrib-group>
                    <contrib contrib-type="author">
                        <name>
                            <surname>VARELA QUIROGA</surname>
                            <given-names>CLAUDIA VIVIANA</given-names>
                        </name>
                        <aff>Cundinamarca, Universidad Antonio Narino, Bogot&#x00e1;, Bogota, Colombia</aff>
                    </contrib>
                </contrib-group>
                <author-notes>
                    <fn fn-type="conflict">
                        <p>
                            <bold>Competing interests: </bold>The authors declare that they have no competing interests</p>
                    </fn>
                </author-notes>
                <pub-date pub-type="epub">
                    <day>21</day>
                    <month>3</month>
                    <year>2026</year>
                </pub-date>
            </front-stub>
            <body>
                <p>We sincerely thank Dr. Erry Hidayanto for the constructive and precise feedback. All comments have been carefully addressed, and the manuscript has been substantially revised to improve conceptual clarity, methodological accuracy, and analytical rigor. A detailed response is provided below.</p>
                <p> 1. Introduction: research gap not clearly identified</p>
                <p> Comment: Substantial gaps are not yet apparent.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> The Introduction has been substantially revised to clarify the research gap. We now explicitly state that, although gamification has been widely studied in education, there is a lack of systematic understanding of how specific gamification elements are linked to metacognitive processes. Additionally, we highlight that many studies report positive outcomes without clearly specifying instructional mechanisms or metacognitive scaffolding, which justifies the need for this review.</p>
                <p> 2. Numerical inconsistency in study selection</p>
                <p> Comment: The number of reviewed articles is inconsistent (253 &#x2013; 181 = 72, not 71).</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We appreciate this observation. The inconsistency has been corrected. The manuscript now clearly reports that 72 full-text articles were assessed, one was excluded due to confirmed plagiarism, and 71 studies were included in the final analysis, ensuring full consistency across the PRISMA flow description.</p>
                <p> 3. PRISMA version</p>
                <p> Comment: PRISMA 2009 was used instead of PRISMA 2020.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> This has been corrected. The manuscript now explicitly follows and references the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021) throughout the Methods section, including updated reporting of the selection process.</p>
                <p> 4. Results do not explicitly answer research questions</p>
                <p> Comment: Findings do not clearly address the RQ.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> The Results section has been reorganized to explicitly align with each research question RQ1&#x2013;RQ3. Each subsection now presents findings directly linked to the corresponding research question, improving coherence and analytical clarity.</p>
                <p> 5. Conclusion is descriptive rather than synthetic</p>
                <p> Comment: The conclusion is still theoretical, not a systematic synthesis.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> The Conclusions section has been substantially revised to reflect a pattern-based synthesis of the evidence. Rather than summarizing concepts, we now identify recurring conditions under which metacognitive outcomes are reported, providing a more analytical and evidence-based synthesis.</p>
                <p> 6. Causal interpretation of findings</p>
                <p> Comment: The conclusion reflects causal relationships rather than patterns of evidence.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We have carefully revised the manuscript to avoid causal claims. The findings are now explicitly framed as associations conditioned by instructional design features, rather than direct causal effects. We emphasize that gamification does not inherently produce metacognitive development, but that outcomes depend on the intentional integration of reflective scaffolding and pedagogical alignment.</p>
                <p> We appreciate the reviewer&#x2019;s valuable feedback, which has contributed to improving the conceptual clarity, methodological consistency, and analytical depth of the manuscript. We believe the revised version addresses all concerns and provides a more robust and transparent systematic review.</p>
            </body>
        </sub-article>
    </sub-article>
    <sub-article article-type="reviewer-report" id="report443386">
        <front-stub>
            <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5256/f1000research.190917.r443386</article-id>
            <title-group>
                <article-title>Reviewer response for version 1</article-title>
            </title-group>
            <contrib-group>
                <contrib contrib-type="author">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Galeote</surname>
                        <given-names>Daniel Fern&#x00e1;ndez</given-names>
                    </name>
                    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="r443386a1">1</xref>
                    <role>Referee</role>
                    <uri content-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5197-146X</uri>
                </contrib>
                <aff id="r443386a1">
                    <label>1</label>Tampere University, Tampere, Finland</aff>
            </contrib-group>
            <author-notes>
                <fn fn-type="conflict">
                    <p>
                        <bold>Competing interests: </bold>No competing interests were disclosed.</p>
                </fn>
            </author-notes>
            <pub-date pub-type="epub">
                <day>7</day>
                <month>1</month>
                <year>2026</year>
            </pub-date>
            <permissions>
                <copyright-statement>Copyright: &#x00a9; 2026 Galeote DF</copyright-statement>
                <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
                <license xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
                    <license-p>This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</license-p>
                </license>
            </permissions>
            <related-article ext-link-type="doi" id="relatedArticleReport443386" related-article-type="peer-reviewed-article" xlink:href="10.12688/f1000research.173134.1"/>
            <custom-meta-group>
                <custom-meta>
                    <meta-name>recommendation</meta-name>
                    <meta-value>approve-with-reservations</meta-value>
                </custom-meta>
            </custom-meta-group>
        </front-stub>
        <body>
            <p>- Article summary and overall opinion</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> This study systematically reviews the relationship between gamification and metacognition, as well as wider higher-order thinking skills. The review is based on 71 articles from 2019-2024 found through Scopus and WoS. The findings indicate that gamification is associated with metacognition through a variety of elements and psychological processes, and its use to this end justified via a small number of theories and frameworks.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> I found the article easy to read and tackling an important topic. Because this journal focuses primarily on "the scientific validity of the article, rather than the novelty or interest levels", my observations below focus on framing and analytical limitations that I consider should be addressed to make this review as sound as it can be. My main concerns include a limited framing of concepts and research questions, unjustified choices, and limited systematicity in the reporting of findings, in addition to incomplete (as far as I saw, and if I am not mistaken) supplemental files. If these can be clarified and amended, the review can offer a valid contribution, but they should be seen as a request for rather significant revisions. Therefore, my decision assumes that the requests can be fulfilled by the authors.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> - General comments by section</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> 1. Introduction</p>
            <p> The section does a good job of summarizing the relationship between gamification and metacognition at a general level, even though this relationship is presented in an exclusively positive way: only the potential and evidence for the usefulness of gamification are discussed, but in my view there could be room for deeper questions at this point (e.g., where does gamification work and not work?) and possible limitations of this approach supporting the need for a critical systematic review. See, e.g., my and my colleagues' qualitative assessment of student experiences with gamified metacognitive prompts (https://doi.org/10.1145/3757980.3758006).</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> One related comment is about this segment: "Despite this evidence, the implementation of gamification in educational institutions has hardly been explored, particularly regarding the analysis and study of its psychological and pedagogical frames, as well as its specific effect on the development of metacognition." I suggest rephrasing this sentence so that it is less ambiguous about what has been studied: education tends to be by far the most explored context of gamification (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013) and its psychological and pedagogical (theoretical) frames have been extensively studied (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963), as well as practical methods of application (too many design frameworks to even cite). If the issue here is that there is no systematic understanding of how gamification interacts with metacognition, I'd just go for that argument unambiguously.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> 2. Materials and Methods</p>
            <p> RQ1 does not refer to the educational context only, but the search string limits the results to anything explicitly connected with education. Is this not a mismatch that renders RQ1 essentially inadequate for this review?</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> The concept of HOTS (RQ3) was not clearly introduced and defined before. It was just said that metacognition is "one of them" but why is the study now focusing on these? If the review focuses on these, an expanded introduction explaining this concept, its significance, and why it can be included within the same review is needed.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> The time limit imposed (2019 on) is not explicitly justified.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Why were "cognitive ability" and "awareness" chosen as the most relevant keywords to include besides metacognition? Is this based on trial searches? Existing metacognition frameworks such as https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i21.14907 and https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021668 would have probably suggested relevant key concepts to metacognition (e.g., self-regulation). Please justify the choices or acknowledge the limitations.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> I conducted a new search on Scopus for the period 2019-2024 using the same string. It yielded 337 documents versus the 165 resported, indicating that this area of research (at least in the way paraphrased in the search string used) is being constantly growing and updating, even within a restricted time frame. This may be worth mentioning in the limitations, since a reader cannot expect the results to be necessarily exhaustive of even the time frame chosen.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Please consider rephrasing the following sentences, I do not understand the "corresponding database" part in the first sentence and the grammar in the second one: "During this phase, one article was excluded after verifying that it had been reported as plagiarized, because it was not part of the corresponding database. The exclusion criteria were ethical and scientific considerations were excluded from this study."</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> "The following samples were extracted from each study: general bibliographic information, study-level metadata, methodological characteristics, gamification-related variables, metacognition-related variables, theoretical frameworks, higher-order cognitive skills, relevance to each research question, and main conclusions extracted from each study." Can you please provide more details on how analytical categories within each of these variables were formed and applied? Especially when talking about "methodological characteristics, gamification-related variables, metacognition-related variables, theoretical frameworks, higher-order cognitive skills", are these deductively created from pre-existing frameworks (which should be referenced) or inductively formed from the studies analyzed? If so, what was the process?</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> "The risk of bias in the studies was evaluated using criteria adapted from qualitative evidence." I would need more detail about this to truly grasp what is meant. What qualitative evidence? In addition, this risk of bias seems to not appear again in the manuscript. How was it applied? For what?</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> 3. Results</p>
            <p> The answer to RQ1 is presented, as the introduction anticipated, in an exclusively positive way, but there are hints that gamification could not work as intended: for example, sources seem to talk about "the appropriate integration of game-based content" or "well-designed gamification". Therefore, it would be very interesting for the reader to know more about how "appropriate" and "well-designed" gamification looks. If these studies don't say, then that's a limitation worth discussing.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> "According to Leal Uhlig et al. (2023), technology plays a key role in GBL environments..." So did all the studies analyzed incorporate digital technology (I take "technology" to mean digital in this context)? This is somewhat surprising, since there are many GBL methods (board games, card games, role-playing games) that do not require digital technology at all.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> The fact that so many studies seemed not to specify their learning methodologies, learning theories or cognitive processes is surprising and should be discussed. Also, I think that self-determination theory should not be labelled as a "psychological theory of learning" since it is about human motivation. Consider changing the category's name.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> In general, the results are presented in a way that feels rather generic: examples of implementations are mentioned in an example-like, unsystematic way, and for the most part gamification is treated as a unitary concept. Yet, implementations vary very significantly and it is not clear to me how we can talk about gamification as a whole without doing a deeper analysis that attempts to systematically categorize different designs (e.g., based on game elements and affordances). One example of a sentence that hints at this problem is the following: "gamification, by integrating reflective strategies, such as self-ssessment journals and evaluation spaces, promotes awareness of one&#x2019;s own learning processes". This really sounds like the methods that promote awareness are journals and evaluation spaces, which are not intrinsic to gamification nor do they require it. This is, at the very least, a limitation of this review. Alternatively, a systematic account of the mechanisms used in each study and a table presenting the relationship between methods, psychological processes and outcomes (sytematizing observations such as, e.g., "augmented reality shows that gamified activities involve exploration, analysis, and evaluation, which makes higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) more explicit in the learning process" or "solving challenges requires the application of thinking and logical skills (cognitive challenges), and often overcoming challenges that depend on solving previous situations, which implies a progression in the complexity of thinking") would greatly improve the contribution and the apparent soundness of the conclusions. The incompleteness of the supplemental files (see below) makes this crucial.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> A minor point: the figures have inconsistent fonts at times.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> 4. Discussion</p>
            <p> "This systematic review explored the existing literature in relation to the influence of gamification on the development of metacognitive processes in educational settings" But what about HOTS?</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> "Elements, such as feedback, progressive challenges, immediate rewards, and constant reflection stand out." Without a systematic presentation of elements, the reader cannot tell what "standing out" means. Is this a quantitative assessment?</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> The discussion could be more critical in its appraisal of the subject; the closest is this sentence which resonates with some of my comments above: "scholars do not support the idea that gamification inherently generates metacognitive processes (Juan-L&#x00e1;zaro &amp; Area-Moreira, 2021; McGowan et al. 2023; Qiao et al. 2022)". My requests should help provide a more structured answer to the question of how gamification can generate metacognitive processes and what pitfalls may exist.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> The discussion includes a couple of limitations but section 5 is the one labelled "limitations". Please also consider multiple additional limitations mentioned throughout my peer review.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> "Finally, the review shows that gamification should articulate three complementary axes: first, the learning methodologies that guide its implementation; second, the psychological foundations that explain the mechanisms of motivation, autonomy, and student engagement; and third, the metacognitive processes that directly support planning, monitoring, and evaluation of learning are related to these mechanisms. This connection between theory and practice reinforces the idea that gamification should be considered from a didactic perspective with strong potential to foster higher-order thinking skills (HOTS)." If you mean here that articles should clarify these more explicitly, as I too mentioned above, please say so. Aside from this, the paragraph refers to a "connection between theory and practice" but I don't understand what it means. The authors chose these three axes themselves, so they established the connection: if you mean that the findings of the review reinforce the existence of this connection, please be more clear about it.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> 5. Conclusion and Limitations</p>
            <p> "this study highlights the need to understand its application in education from perspectives that integrate both the conceptual and procedural aspects. At the conceptual level, this study indicates that gamification should be understood based on a set of psychological theories that explain, on the one hand, what learning is and how it occurs, and, on the other, which cognitive processes are involved. At the procedural level, this study emphasizes the importance of approaching gamification from a didactic perspective by addressing questions related to the role of specific tools in teaching and learning content, skills, and competencies, as reflected in game-based learning (GBL)." I agree, and as I said above, it would be excellent if this review itself could be more systematic about the way in which it presents these conceptual and procedural aspects of gamification, rather than mostly narrative.</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> "this review reveals that gamification and metacognition have not yet been fully studied in educational contexts" How so? What part of the findings revealed this?</p>
            <p> </p>
            <p> Supplemental files</p>
            <p> The data extraction matrix linked in Zenodo appears to me severely incomplete: most of the analytical categories are missing from it and it still includes the "plagiarized" article. Please provide a full matrix.</p>
            <p>Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?</p>
            <p>Partly</p>
            <p>Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?</p>
            <p>Not applicable</p>
            <p>If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the &#x2018;living&#x2019; method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (&#x2018;Living Systematic Review&#x2019; or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)</p>
            <p>Not applicable</p>
            <p>Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?</p>
            <p>Partly</p>
            <p>Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?</p>
            <p>Partly</p>
            <p>Reviewer Expertise:</p>
            <p>Games and gamification</p>
            <p>I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.</p>
        </body>
        <back>
            <ref-list>
                <title>References</title>
                <ref id="rep-ref-443386-1">
                    <label>1</label>
                    <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                        <person-group person-group-type="author"/>:
                        <article-title>The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research</article-title>.
                        <source>
                            <italic>International Journal of Information Management</italic>
                        </source>.<year>2019</year>;<volume>45</volume>:
                        <elocation-id>10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013</elocation-id>
                        <fpage>191</fpage>-<lpage>210</lpage>
                        <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013</pub-id>
                    </mixed-citation>
                </ref>
                <ref id="rep-ref-443386-2">
                    <label>2</label>
                    <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                        <person-group person-group-type="author"/>:
                        <article-title>Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning</article-title>.
                        <source>
                            <italic>Computers in Human Behavior</italic>
                        </source>.<year>2021</year>;<volume>125</volume>:
                        <elocation-id>10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963</elocation-id>
                        <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963</pub-id>
                    </mixed-citation>
                </ref>
                <ref id="rep-ref-443386-3">
                    <label>3</label>
                    <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                        <person-group person-group-type="author"/>:
                        <article-title>The 8 Pillars of Metacognition</article-title>.
                        <source>
                            <italic>International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)</italic>
                        </source>.<year>2020</year>;<volume>15</volume>(<issue>21</issue>) :
                        <elocation-id>10.3991/ijet.v15i21.14907</elocation-id>
                        <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3991/ijet.v15i21.14907</pub-id>
                    </mixed-citation>
                </ref>
                <ref id="rep-ref-443386-4">
                    <label>4</label>
                    <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
                        <person-group person-group-type="author"/>:
                        <article-title>Meta-Learning: A Nine-Layer Model Based on Metacognition and Smart Technologies</article-title>.
                        <source>
                            <italic>Sustainability</italic>
                        </source>.<year>2023</year>;<volume>15</volume>(<issue>2</issue>) :
                        <elocation-id>10.3390/su15021668</elocation-id>
                        <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/su15021668</pub-id>
                    </mixed-citation>
                </ref>
            </ref-list>
        </back>
        <sub-article article-type="response" id="comment15747-443386">
            <front-stub>
                <contrib-group>
                    <contrib contrib-type="author">
                        <name>
                            <surname>VARELA QUIROGA</surname>
                            <given-names>CLAUDIA VIVIANA</given-names>
                        </name>
                        <aff>Cundinamarca, Universidad Antonio Narino, Bogot&#x00e1;, Bogota, Colombia</aff>
                    </contrib>
                </contrib-group>
                <author-notes>
                    <fn fn-type="conflict">
                        <p>
                            <bold>Competing interests: </bold>The authors declare that they have no competing interests.</p>
                    </fn>
                </author-notes>
                <pub-date pub-type="epub">
                    <day>21</day>
                    <month>3</month>
                    <year>2026</year>
                </pub-date>
            </front-stub>
            <body>
                <p>We sincerely thank Dr. Daniel Fern&#x00e1;ndez Galeote for the thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and analytical depth of the manuscript. All comments have been carefully addressed in the revised version. Below, we provide a point-by-point response.</p>
                <p> 1.&#x00a0; Introduction: conceptual framing and critical perspective</p>
                <p> Comment: The introduction presents gamification in an exclusively positive way and lacks a critical perspective.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We have revised the Introduction to incorporate a more balanced and critical perspective. Specifically, we now acknowledge that the effects of gamification are not uniform and depend on instructional design quality, contextual alignment, and the explicit inclusion of metacognitive scaffolding. We also clarified that the gap addressed by this review is not the absence of research on gamification in education, but the lack of a systematic understanding of how gamification interacts with metacognitive processes.</p>
                <p> 2.&#x00a0; Research questions and conceptual clarity (HOTS)</p>
                <p> Comment: HOTS was not clearly introduced or justified.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We expanded the theoretical framing of Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in the Methods section, explicitly defining the construct and justifying its inclusion. We clarified that HOTS were included because several studies examined metacognition alongside broader cognitive outcomes, and that metacognitive regulation is frequently conceptualized as a mechanism underlying these skills.</p>
                <p> 3.&#x00a0; Methodological transparency</p>
                <p> Comment: Lack of justification for keywords, time frame, and search decisions.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We improved methodological transparency by:</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Justifying the time range (2019&#x2013;2024) as reflecting recent developments in gamified educational practices and digital integration.</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Explaining the inclusion of keywords such as &#x201c;cognitive ability&#x201d; and &#x201c;awareness&#x201d; as overlapping constructs used to capture metacognitive processes.</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Explicitly acknowledging the limitations of the search strategy, including potential omissions of relevant literature.</p>
                <p> 4.&#x00a0; Data extraction and analytical process</p>
                <p> Comment: Lack of clarity on how analytical categories were formed.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We clarified that the analytical categories were primarily developed through an inductive thematic synthesis, based on recurring patterns identified in the included studies. We also described how the coding process was iteratively refined and validated through reviewer consensus.</p>
                <p> 5.&#x00a0; Risk of bias and quality appraisal</p>
                <p> Comment: Insufficient explanation and unclear use.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We clarified that, due to methodological heterogeneity, a formal risk-of-bias tool was not applied. Instead, we conducted a qualitative appraisal of reporting transparency, theoretical grounding, and alignment between design and outcomes. This limitation is now explicitly acknowledged in the manuscript.</p>
                <p> 6.&#x00a0; Results: lack of systematicity and overgeneralization</p>
                <p> Comment: Results are presented in a generic way.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We substantially revised the Results section to:</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Emphasize the heterogeneity of gamification designs, avoiding treating gamification as a single unified construct.</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Clarify that reported outcomes depend on specific design features.</p>
                <p> </p>
                <p> 7.&#x00a0; Mechanisms and instructional design</p>
                <p> Comment: Lack of clarity on what &#x201c;well-designed&#x201d; gamification means.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We addressed this by identifying recurring instructional features associated with metacognitive outcomes, including:</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Structured feedback</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Goal-setting tasks</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Opportunities for reflection and self-assessment</p>
                <p> We also explicitly stated that many studies do not sufficiently operationalize these elements, which is now discussed as a key limitation.</p>
                <p> 8.&#x00a0; Discussion: need for critical analysis</p>
                <p> Comment: Discussion lacks critical depth.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> The Discussion has been strengthened to:</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Avoid causal claims and instead frame findings as conditional associations</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Highlight limitations in the evidence base</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Emphasize that gamification does not inherently produce metacognition, but depends on intentional instructional design</p>
                <p> </p>
                <p> 9.&#x00a0; Conclusions: need for systematic synthesis</p>
                <p> Comment: Conclusions were too general and not evidence-based.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We revised the Conclusions to:</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Reflect patterns of evidence across studies</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Avoid overgeneralization</p>
                <p> &#x2022;&#x00a0;&#x00a0; Emphasize conditions under which metacognitive outcomes are more likely to occur</p>
                <p> </p>
                <p> 10. Supplemental files</p>
                <p> Comment: The matrix was incomplete.</p>
                <p> 
                    <bold>Response:</bold>
                </p>
                <p> We have revised and updated the data extraction matrix to ensure completeness and alignment with the analytical categories described in the manuscript. The updated dataset is now available in the repository.</p>
                <p> </p>
                <p> We appreciate the reviewer&#x2019;s thoughtful and constructive comments, which have contributed to improving the conceptual clarity, methodological transparency, and analytical rigor of the manuscript. We believe the revised manuscript addresses the concerns raised and provides a more robust and systematic contribution to the field.</p>
            </body>
        </sub-article>
    </sub-article>
</article>
