Over the past decade, the integration of technology, particularly gamification, has initiated a substantial transformation within the field of education. However, educators frequently confront the challenge of identifying suitable competitive game-based learning platforms amidst the growing emphasis on cultivating creativity within the classroom and effectively integrating technology into pedagogical practices. The current study examines students and faculty continuous intention to use gamification in higher education. The data was collected through an online survey with a sample size of 763 Pakistani respondents from various universities around Pakistan. The structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data and to investigate how continuous intention to use gamification is influenced by, extended TAM model with inclusion of variables such as task technology fit, social influence, social recognition and hedonic motivation. The results have shown that task technology has no significant influence on perceived usefulness (PU) where as it has a significant influence on perceived ease of use (PEOU). Social influence (SI) indicates no significant influence on perceived ease of use. Social recognition (SR) indicates positive influence on perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and continuous intention. The dimensional analysis indicated that perceived ease of use has insignificant influence on perceived usefulness. Both PEOU and PU exhibit positive influence on attitude. Hedonic motivation (HM) and attitude were observed to have a positive influence on continuous intention (CI). Moreover, gamification is found to efficiently and effectively achieve meaningful goals by tapping intrinsic motivation of the users through engaging them in playful experiences.

1. Ab Hamid, M. R., Sami, W., & Mohmad Sidek, M. H. (2017). Discriminant Validity Assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT Criterion. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 890, 012163. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012163
2. Adwan, A. S. A., Adwan, A. A., & Berger, H. (2018). Solving the mystery of mobile learning adoption in higher education. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 16(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmc.2018.088271
3. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034440
4. Akdim, K., Casaló, L. V., & Flavián, C. (2022). The role of utilitarian and hedonic aspects in the continuance intention to use social mobile apps. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 66, 102888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102888
5. Alamri, M. M., Almaiah, M. A., & Al-Rahmi, W. M. (2020). The Role of Compatibility and Task-Technology Fit (TTF): On Social Networking Applications (SNAs) Usage as Sustainability in Higher Education. IEEE Access, 8, 161668–161681. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3021944
6. Aldosemani, T. I. (2023). A Technology-Acceptance-Model-Based Study of the Attitudes Towards Learning Management Systems Among Teachers During the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 13(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijopcd.325240
7. Asiri, M. J. (2019). Do Teachers Attitudes, Perception of Usefulness, and Perceived Social Influences Predict their Behavioral Intentions to Use Gamification in EFL Classrooms? Evidence from the Middle East. International Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2019.73.112.122
8. Baabdullah, A. M. (2018). Consumer adoption of Mobile Social Network Games (M-SNGs) in Saudi Arabia: The role of social influence, hedonic motivation and trust. Technology in Society, 53, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.01.004
9. Baptista, G., & Oliveira, T. (2015). Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 418–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.024
10. Beldad, A. D., & Hegner, S. M. (2017). Expanding the Technology Acceptance Model with the Inclusion of Trust, Social Influence, and Health Valuation to Determine the Predictors of German Users’ Willingness to Continue using a Fitness App: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(9), 882–893. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1403220
11. Campillo-Ferrer, J. M., Miralles-Martínez, P., & Sánchez-Ibáñez, R. (2020). Gamification in Higher Education: Impact on Student Motivation and the Acquisition of Social and Civic Key Competencies. Sustainability, 12(12), 4822. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124822
12. Chans, G. M., & Portuguez Castro, M. (2021). Gamification as a Strategy to Increase Motivation and Engagement in Higher Education Chemistry Students. Computers, 10(10), 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10100132
13. Chung, C. H., Shen, C., & Qiu, Y. Z. (2019). Students’ Acceptance of Gamification in Higher Education. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 9(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2019040101
14. Danish, R. Q., & Usman, A. (2010). Impact of Reward and Recognition on Job Satisfaction and Motivation: An Empirical study from Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n2p159
15. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
16. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., et al. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
17. Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., et al. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.229
18. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
19. Fragoso, R., Rocha-Junior, W., & Xavier, A. (2019). Determinant factors of entrepreneurial intention among university students in Brazil and Portugal. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 32(1), 33–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1551459
20. Gauri, V., Jamison, J. C., Mazar, N., et al. (2021). Motivating bureaucrats through social recognition: External validity—A tale of two states. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 163, 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.05.005
21. Gebauer, J., & Ginsburg, M. (2009). Exploring the black box of task-technology fit. Communications of the ACM, 52(1), 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1145/1435417.1435447
22. Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2572–2593. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864
23. Groening, C., & Binnewies, C. (2019). “Achievement unlocked!” - The impact of digital achievements as a gamification element on motivation and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.026
24. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Gudergan, S. P., et al. (2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling-based discrete choice modeling: an illustration in modeling retailer choice. Business Research, 12(1), 115–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-018-0072-4
25. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does Gamification Work?—A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. In: Proceedings of the 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2014.377
26. Hassan, L., & Hamari, J. (2019). Gamification of E-Participation: A Literature Review. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2019.372
27. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7
28. Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2016). A definition for gamification: anchoring gamification in the service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z
29. Irwanto, I., Wahyudiati, D., Saputro, A. D., et al. (2023). Research Trends and Applications of Gamification in Higher Education: A Bibliometric Analysis Spanning 2013–2022. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 18(05), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i05.37021
30. Isaac, O., Aldholay, A., Abdullah, Z., et al. (2019). Online learning usage within Yemeni higher education: The role of compatibility and task-technology fit as mediating variables in the IS success model. Computers & Education, 136, 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.012
31. Ishaq, K., Mat Zin, N. A., Rosdi, F., et al. (2021). Mobile-assisted and gamification-based language learning: a systematic literature review. PeerJ Computer Science, 7, e496. Portico. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.496
32. Kabilan, M. K., Annamalai, N., & Chuah, K. M. (2023). Practices, purposes and challenges in integrating gamification using technology: A mixed-methods study on university academics. Education and Information Technologies, 28(11), 14249–14281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11723-7
33. Lin, K. Y., Kao, C. P., & Chien, H. M. (2018). Predicting Teachers’ Behavioral Intentions Regarding Web-based Professional Development by the Theory of Planned Behavior. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/85425
34. Karagozlu, D. (2017). Determination of the impact of augmented reality application on the success and problem-solving skills of students. Quality & Quantity, 52(5), 2393–2402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0674-5
35. Khaldi, A., Bouzidi, R., & Nader, F. (2023). Gamification of e-learning in higher education: a systematic literature review. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00227-z
36. Kim, R., & Song, H. D. (2021). Examining the Influence of Teaching Presence and Task-Technology Fit on Continuance Intention to Use MOOCs. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(4), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00581-x
37. Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013
38. Kumar, J. A., & Bervell, B. (2019). Google Classroom for mobile learning in higher education: Modelling the initial perceptions of students. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1793–1817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-09858-z
39. Kyewski, E., & Krämer, N. C. (2018). To gamify or not to gamify? An experimental field study of the influence of badges on motivation, activity, and performance in an online learning course. Computers & Education, 118, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.006
40. Lee, J., Lee, S. Y., & Chung, J. I. (2022). The Motivational Dynamics of Social Entrepreneurial Intention: The Interactive Effects Between Monetary Rewards and Social Recognition. Journal of Policy Studies, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.52372/jps37402
41. Leong, M. K., & Chaichi, K. (2021). The Adoption of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Trust in Influencing Online Purchase Intention During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v11-i8/10422
42. Lin, C. W., Hsu, Y. C., & Lin, C. Y. (2017). User perception, intention, and attitude on mobile advertising. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 15(1), 104. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmc.2017.080580
43. Liu, K., Yao, J., Tao, D., et al. (2023). Influence of Individual-technology-task-environment Fit on University Student Online Learning Performance: The Mediating Role of Behavioral, Emotional, and Cognitive Engagement. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 15949–15968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11833-2
44. Lu, H. P., & Yang, Y. W. (2014). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use a social networking site: An extension of task-technology fit to social-technology fit. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.020
45. Maghrour Zefreh, M., Edries, B., & Esztergár-Kiss, D. (2023). Understanding the antecedents of hedonic motivation in autonomous vehicle technology acceptance domain: A cross-country analysis. Technology in Society, 74, 102314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102314
46. Mahfuzah Mohamad, S. N., Mohd Salleh, M. A., Abdul Hamid, M. H., et al. (2019). Adaptive Learning Strategies with Gamification to Enhance Learning Engagement. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 12(31), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2019/v12i31/146871
47. Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., López-Sánchez, J. Á., López-Rey, M. J., et al. (2023). Gamification in higher education: The ECOn+ star battles. Computers & Education, 194, 104699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104699
48. Oluwajana, D., Nat, M., Idowu, A., et al. (2019). The Adoption of Students’ Hedonic Motivation System Model to Gamified Learning Environment. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 14(3), 156–167. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-18762019000300109
49. Piuri, V., Balas, V. E., Borah, S., Syed Ahmad, S. S. (2019). Intelligent and Interactive Computing. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6031-2
50. Parkes, A. (2013). The effect of task–individual–technology fit on user attitude and performance: An experimental investigation. Decision Support Systems, 54(2), 997–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.10.025
51. Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J., et al. (2014). Technology acceptance model (TAM) and social media usage: an empirical study on Facebook. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(1), 6–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-04-2012-0011
52. Roslan, R., Fauzi Mohd Ayub, A., Binti Ghazali, N., et al. (2023). Investigating Factors That Affect the Continuance Use Intention Among the Higher Education Institutions’ Learners Towards a Gamified M-Learning Application. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 22, 097–128. https://doi.org/10.28945/5080
53. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
54. Shafait, Z., Khan, M. A., Sahibzada, U. F., et al. (2021). An assessment of students’ emotional intelligence, learning outcomes, and academic efficacy: A correlational study in higher education. PLOS ONE, 16(8), e0255428. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255428
55. Sharif, A., & Raza, S. A. (2017). The influence of hedonic motivation, self-efficacy, trust and habit on adoption of internet banking: a case of developing country. International Journal of Electronic Customer Relationship Management, 11(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijecrm.2017.086750
56. Sharifi Fard, S., Alkelani, A. M., & Tamam, E. (2019). Habit as a moderator of the association of utilitarian motivation and hedonic motivation with purchase intention: Implications for social networking websites. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1674068
57. Shen, S., Xu, K., Sotiriadis, M., et al. (2022). Exploring the factors influencing the adoption and usage of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality applications in tourism education within the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 30, 100373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2022.100373
58. Smiderle, R., Rigo, S. J., Marques, L. B., et al. (2020). The impact of gamification on students’ learning, engagement and behavior based on their personality traits. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0098-x
59. Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Prakasam, N., et al. (2019). The battle of Brain vs. Heart: A literature review and meta-analysis of “hedonic motivation” use in UTAUT2. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.008
60. Ting, F. S. T., Lam, W. H., & Shroff, R. H. (2019). Active Learning via Problem-Based Collaborative Games in a Large Mathematics University Course in Hong Kong. Education Sciences, 9(3), 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030172
61. Toda, A. M., Klock, A. C. T., Oliveira, W., et al. (2019). Analysing gamification elements in educational environments using an existing Gamification taxonomy. Smart Learning Environments, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0106-1
62. Uz Bilgin, C., & Gul, A. (2019). Investigating the Effectiveness of Gamification on Group Cohesion, Attitude, and Academic Achievement in Collaborative Learning Environments. TechTrends, 64(1), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00442-x
63. Vanduhe, V. Z., Nat, M., & Hasan, H. F. (2020). Continuance Intentions to Use Gamification for Training in Higher Education: Integrating the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Social Motivation, and Task Technology Fit (TTF). IEEE Access, 8, 21473–21484. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2966179
64. Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
65. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., Xu, X. (2012). Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
66. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
67. Wang, X., Goh, D. H. L., & Lim, E. P. (2020). Understanding Continuance Intention toward Crowdsourcing Games: A Longitudinal Investigation. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(12), 1168–1177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1724010
68. Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028
69. Zainuddin, Z., Shujahat, M., Haruna, H., et al. (2020). The role of gamified e-quizzes on student learning and engagement: An interactive gamification solution for a formative assessment system. Computers & Education, 145, 103729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103729