Gamification in the classroom: when playing teaches more than memorizing

Introduction: From passive memorization to engaged learning

Educational gamification incorporates elements of game design into activities whose primary purpose is learning. Its pedagogical value lies in contrast to teaching based on repetition, external rewards, and final assessment, where student participation can be reduced to memorizing answers. Recent evidence indicates that outcomes depend less on adding points or badges than on linking each mechanic to cognitive objectives, feedback, and opportunities for self-regulation (Coelho et al., 2025; Maimaiti & Hew, 2025) . In this sense, playing does not automatically equate to learning: the activity must require interpretation, decision-making, problem-solving, or self-reflection. The studies examined cover mathematics, science, languages, accounting, programming, business education, and ESG content, with generally favorable results, although these are conditioned by the design, duration, and characteristics of the learners. The following analysis distinguishes between observable participation and transferable learning.

From motivation to performance: educational effects of gamification

Commitment, intrinsic motivation, and satisfaction as mediators of learning.

The relationship between gamification and learning is often framed as a chain in which the gaming experience modifies participation, satisfaction, or motivation, and these variables facilitate greater engagement with tasks. In a sample of Vietnamese university students, enjoyment and challenges were associated with learning effectiveness through engagement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation (Nguyen-Viet et al., 2024) . This finding supports a mediating mechanism, but it is based on survey responses and does not establish that motivation alone produces academic improvement.

Experimental results offer a more specific interpretation. A randomized trial compared points, badges, and challenges, both separately and in combination, with a non-gamified condition. The group that received the integrated set showed greater learning, while badges alone increased cognitive load compared to other conditions (Coelho et al., 2025) . The combination appears to work when it articulates goals, feedback, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivational cues, not when it accumulates rewards unrelated to content.

Satisfaction is not equivalent to conceptual mastery. In a TOEFL preparation intervention, enjoyment and motivation increased, but so did anxiety; improvements were seen in listening comprehension, reading, and overall score, while structure and written expression changed little (Arsyad et al., 2024) . This divergence shows that a pleasant experience can coexist with emotional costs and uneven effects across competencies. Similarly, the use of a mobile accounting app was linked to greater interaction with materials, instructors, and peers, and to higher student retention (James et al., 2024) . Retention may reflect a more connected learning experience, although it does not, on its own, demonstrate deeper understanding.

Retention, academic performance, and transfer beyond the gaming experience

Performance outcomes are more robust when measured through tests, official grades, or disciplinary assignments, rather than relying solely on perceptions. Two quasi-experimental studies in Business Management found improvements across all official performance indicators, although attendance remained unchanged (Mateos et al., 2025) . The contrast between achievement and attendance suggests that gamification can improve the work of participants without automatically addressing student absenteeism.

In secondary school mathematics, a gamified platform improved engagement, performance, and attitudes toward the subject compared to a traditional curriculum (Maryana et al., 2024) . In higher education, a cloud-based, mobile system produced better performance in object-oriented programming than a conventional system, with effect sizes described as large and a high normalized gain (Ahmed et al., 2025) . Both studies support academic benefits, but their quasi-experimental designs leave open the possibility of the influence of initial differences between groups.

Knowledge retention requires more than simply completing activities during an intervention. In science, both learning through serious games and creating games improved assessments, but those who designed games achieved an average increase of 3.5 points higher than those who used serious games (Ding & Yu, 2024) . Creating rules, representing phenomena, and reviewing decisions can require more conceptual elaboration than simply consuming a pre-prepared experience. This distinction leads to the central issue of the next section: mechanics are not interchangeable, and their value depends on how they allocate attention, effort, and autonomy.

Mechanics and design: why not all gamification produces the same results

Badges, competition, feedback, and online participation

Game mechanics guide different behaviors. Points provide frequent feedback on progress; badges recognize milestones; challenges structure goals; and rankings introduce social comparison. In online environments, points were correlated with skill, emotional, participative, and performance engagement, while badges were only related to participative engagement (Meng et al., 2024) . Badges also increased intrinsic motivation in Japanese grammar students, but two badge categories did not differ from each other (Luo, 2024) . Recognition can support persistence, although its design seems less crucial than its connection to tasks and achievement criteria.

The competition yielded mixed results. A ranking improved performance in calculation, but interviews primarily described controlled motivation rather than increased autonomy; no clear effects of autonomous motivation or self-efficacy as mediators were observed either (Ortíz-Rojas et al., 2025) . Therefore, the increase in grades does not confirm that the competition generates high-quality motivation. The randomized trial on points, badges, and challenges reached a convergent conclusion: the integration of elements was superior to their isolated application, while badges alone increased cognitive load (Coelho et al., 2025) .

Personalization versus a one-size-fits-all model for all students

Personalization attempts to adjust mechanics, goals , or feedback to individual differences. In a fully online, eight-week course, the personalized group outperformed the uniform model in intrinsic motivation, task completion, cognitive engagement, and performance; interviews associated these results with more positive emotions and fewer negative emotions (Xiao & Hew, 2024) . The comparison is particularly informative because both conditions were gamified, so the contrast relates to adaptation rather than the presence or absence of gameplay.

However, personalization should not be reduced to classifying students by player type. It also requires adapting difficulty, pace, support, and forms of participation, without turning profiles into rigid labels. A review of vocabulary in adults learning English as a second language indicates benefits for both individual and group strategies: the former promote autonomy and the latter social interaction, with results dependent on the context (Ameen, 2026) . The choice should respond to the needs of the class and not to a universal preference for competition or individual work.

Artificial intelligence, mobile devices and gamified digital environments

Mobile platforms, cloud systems, and artificial intelligence expand the capacity to offer visible progress, learning analytics, and adaptive learning paths. A structural equation modeling study of 290 students in Malaysia found positive relationships between gamification, artificial intelligence, engagement, and academic achievement; engagement was also positively related to achievement (Dahri et al., 2025) . Because the data were obtained from surveys and SEM analysis, these results describe relationships consistent with a mechanism but do not prove a causal sequence.

Quasi-experimental evidence on mobile and cloud-based systems does link gamified platforms to improved programming outcomes (Ahmed et al., 2025) . In flipped classrooms, an integrated analytics panel with self-regulation support improved English language performance and planning, execution, and self-assessment skills, while also mitigating their temporary decline (Maimaiti & Hew, 2025) . Technology gains value when it makes the learning process visible and supports learning decisions; simply adding a gamified interface without this function may increase activity without improving comprehension.

From mathematics to languages: contexts where game-based learning takes shape

Science, mathematics and STEM education: problem solving and disciplinary achievement

In STEM , gamification can transform abstract procedures into sequences of problems with goals and feedback. In university calculus, a ranking system improved learning performance compared to the non-gamified condition, although it did not increase perceived autonomy or show a clear mediation of self-efficacy (Ortíz-Rojas et al., 2025) . In secondary school mathematics, a gamified platform simultaneously improved engagement, performance, and attitudes toward the subject (Maryana et al., 2024) . These results suggest that the effect can appear in achievement even when stated motivational mechanisms remain weak.

Game-based pedagogies differ depending on who constructs the experience. In sixth grade, learning through serious games and game creation improved science test scores, but the latter resulted in an average gain of more than 3.5 points (Ding & Yu, 2024) . Game creation requires selecting content, anticipating rules, and explaining causal relationships, thus resembling problem-solving more closely than repetitive practice. It was also observed that students with an intermediate number of weekly gaming hours improved more than those who reported fewer or more hours, although the interaction between modality and hours did not yield conclusive evidence (Ding & Yu, 2024) . Prior experience, therefore, can modify the response without linearly determining it.

Language learning, flipped classrooms, and fully online training

In language learning, gamification combines frequent practice, small goals, and immediate feedback. A study with Chinese students in language programs found a positive effect on achievement, mediated by motivation and reinforced by digital literacy (Shen et al., 2024) . In an English course with a flipped classroom and gamification, overall TOEFL scores, reading, and listening comprehension improved, but not writing or structure; enjoyment was related to motivation, not to subsequent performance (Arsyad et al., 2024) . The discrepancy between subjective experience and objective testing suggests evaluating each skill separately.

Longitudinal follow-up of a gamified flipped classroom model showed improvements in English proficiency and self-regulation, particularly in metacognitive monitoring, goal setting, and time management (Maimaiti & Hew, 2025) . Gamification appeared to moderate the natural decline of underutilized strategies, a more informative result than a single measurement. In fully online training, personalization outperformed uniform design in motivational, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes over eight weeks (Xiao & Hew, 2024) . This duration allows for the observation of habits, although it remains insufficient to establish long-term retention.

Collaboration, transversal skills and ESG content learning

Gamification can also organize collaboration and content that requires critical thinking, discussion, and application. A university intervention that combined ClassDojo with collaborative learning showed improved transversal skills and performance, and received positive feedback on social skills and the teaching-learning process (Cosculluela et al., 2025) . By integrating two pedagogical components, the study does not allow us to attribute the change solely to gamification. Even so, it shows that the mechanics can support group coordination when linked to shared tasks.

In ESG education, a cluster experiment with 22 classes from four universities found better test performance for the gamified group. SEM analysis linked the intervention to greater psychological ownership and perceived importance, variables that were in turn associated with performance (Zhang, 2024) . This case is relevant because environmental, social, and governance concepts require connecting decisions with collective consequences. Collaboration and ownership of the problem broaden the scope of gamification, but require verifying whether students can transfer the knowledge to new situations.

How strong is the evidence: experimental designs, statistical models, and results under tension

Randomized experiments, quasi-experiments, and longitudinal follow-ups

The strength of the evidence depends on the distance between intervention and outcome. The randomized trial comparing game elements with a non-gamified control offers the most direct causal inference among the studies described, although it did not find consistent effects on all cognitive and emotional variables (Coelho et al., 2025) . Quasi-experiments in mathematics, calculus, programming, English, and business management show improvements compared to comparators, but may retain initial differences between groups (Ahmed et al., 2025; Maryana et al., 2024; Mateos et al., 2025; Ortíz-Rojas et al., 2025) .

Longitudinal follow-up adds information that pretest-posttest designs do not capture. In flipped classrooms, self-regulation declined over time, but the gamified group better maintained monitoring, goal setting, and time management (Maimaiti & Hew, 2025) . This result suggests that the intervention can modify the learning trajectory, not just the level achieved at the end. However, it remains to be seen whether these changes persist after the gamified learning mechanics are removed.

From subjective perceptions to indicators of academic achievement

Surveys document enjoyment, satisfaction, engagement, and motivation, but these constructs do not replace knowledge assessments. SEM analyses find positive relationships between gamification and achievement (Dahri et al., 2025) , and between engagement and achievement (Nguyen-Viet et al., 2024) , although simultaneous measurement limits the causal direction. In contrast, studies using exams, official grades, or pretest-posttest assessments show effects more closely related to academic performance (Mateos et al., 2025; Zhang, 2024) .

Tension arises when an intervention improves emotional state without explaining the variation in scores. In the online TOEFL course, enjoyment was related to motivation, but emotional variables did not correlate with subsequent assessments (Arsyad et al., 2024) . In calculus, ranking produced a sense of accomplishment and improved performance, but did not increase autonomy or show a strong relationship between self-efficacy and performance (Ortíz-Rojas et al., 2025) . The evaluation should include accountability at both levels and avoid concluding that a favorable perception demonstrates learning.

The role of digital literacy, motivation, and individual differences.

Individual differences modify the response to gamification. Digital literacy strengthened the relationship between gamification, motivation, and achievement in language learning (Shen et al., 2024) . Gaming experience and weekly hours also influenced outcomes in science, although the observed interaction was not conclusive (Ding & Yu, 2024) . Online, personalization produced better results than uniform design, with effects attributed to emotions and study behaviors (Xiao & Hew, 2024) .

These moderations complicate any universal recommendation. A ranking system can stimulate effort in some students and control motivation in others (Ortíz-Rojas et al., 2025) . Badges can recognize progress, but they can also increase cognitive load if introduced without a clear connection to the task (Coelho et al., 2025) . Evidence favors context-sensitive designs, but still offers little information on accessibility, technological inequality, and students who do not identify with gamification practices.

Critical synthesis and gaps for a pedagogically responsible gamification

Design conditions to turn play into meaningful learning

Pedagogical responsibility begins with the learning outcome, and the mechanics are selected only afterward. Goals should guide observable cognitive actions, feedback should explain how to improve, and rewards should recognize actual progress. Randomized trial and error favors the integration of points, badges, and challenges when they are aligned with goals and feedback (Coelho et al., 2025) . Game creation, collaborative learning, and self-regulation boards show that participation is most valuable when it involves producing, explaining, planning, or revising (Cosculluela et al., 2025; Ding & Yu, 2024; Maimaiti & Hew, 2025) .

A well-designed game must also anticipate costs. Competition can produce controlled motivation (Ortíz-Rojas et al., 2025) , badges can increase cognitive load (Coelho et al., 2025) , and a pleasant experience can coexist with anxiety (Arsyad et al., 2024) . Therefore, it is advisable to offer individual and collaborative routes, adjust the difficulty, allow task repetition, and assess knowledge through interface-independent tests. Personalization can improve results, but it should be based on learning needs and not just player profiles (Xiao & Hew, 2024) .

Limitations of the corpus: duration, diversity of contexts, and comparison between mechanics

The corpus shows a clear concentration on higher education and digital environments. Although it includes secondary school, sixth grade, and adult English learners, many studies come from specific university courses and local samples (Ameen, 2026; Ding & Yu, 2024; Maryana et al., 2024) . Durations are generally short to moderate; even the eight-week study does not reveal whether the effects persist after gamification is removed (Xiao & Hew, 2024) . The studies themselves call for investigating long-term effects and contextual factors (Dahri et al., 2025) .

Comparisons between mechanics are also limited. Rankings, points, badges, challenges, game creation, and customization often appear in different interventions, with different tests and populations. This makes it difficult to establish which element is superior overall. Gaps remain regarding transfer, delayed retention, accessibility, teaching load, and implementation costs. Future research should compare mechanics within the same course, measure academic and emotional outcomes separately, and incorporate follow-up studies.

Conclusion: Play with purpose to learn more than memorize

Gamification can surpass passive memorization when it transforms content into a sequence of understandable decisions, explanations, reviews, and goals. The reviewed studies show improvements in performance, engagement, self-regulation, retention, and transversal skills, but they also demonstrate that these effects do not stem from just any reward (Cosculluela et al., 2025; Maimaiti & Hew, 2025; Mateos et al., 2025) . The integration of mechanics, personalization, and connection to disciplinary tasks appear more relevant than a playful appearance (Coelho et al., 2025; Xiao & Hew, 2024) . Responsible gamified teaching must assess transferable knowledge, monitor cognitive load and anxiety, and recognize contextual differences. Playing teaches more than memorizing only when the game organizes an intellectual activity that the student can understand, practice, and apply outside the gamified experience.

References

• Ahmed, HMM, El-Sabagh, HA, & Elbourhamy, DM (2025). Effect of a cloud-based, mobile, gamified learning management system (GMCLMS) on student engagement and achievement. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 22 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00541-1
• Ameen, F. (2026). Individual and group competitive digital gamification in adult English classrooms: A systematic review of the effects on vocabulary retention, motivation, and participation. Smart Learning Environments , 13 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-026-00447-z
• Arsyad, S., Waluyo, B., & Maisarah, I. (2024). Improving TOEFL performance and student motivation through integrated flipped and gamified learning in online environments. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies , 2024 , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/1054242
• Coelho, F., Rando, B., Aparício, D., Ribeiro, PCPSV, Gonçalves, DJV, & Abreu, AM (2025). The impact of educational gamification on cognition, emotions, and motivation: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Computers in Education , 13 (2), 537–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-025-00366-x
• Cosculluela, CL, Sánchez, VS, & Toledo, SV (2025). Gamification, collaborative learning and transversal skills: analysis of academic performance and students’ perceptions. Smart Learning Environments , 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00361-2
• Dahri, NA, Yahaya, N., Al-Rahmi, WM, Almuqren, L., Almgren, AS, Alshimai, A., & Al-Adwan, AS (2025). The effect of AI-powered gamification on student engagement and academic performance in Malaysia: Perspectives from SEM analysis. IEEE Access , 13 , 70791–70810. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2025.3560567
• Ding, A.-CE, & Yu, C.-H. (2024). Serious game-based learning and learning through game creation: Types of game-based pedagogies and students’ play hours influence science learning outcomes. Computers & Education , 218 , 105075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105075
• James, W., Oates, G., & Schönfeldt, N. (2024). Improving student retention, engagement, and learning outcomes through gamified mobile technology. Accounting Education , 34 (3), 366–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2024.2326009
• Luo, J. (2024). Validation of the impact of gamified technology-enhanced learning environments on motivation and academic performance: improving teleconferencing with digital badges. Frontiers in Education , 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1429452
• Maimaiti, G., & Hew, K.F. (2025). Gamification boosts self-regulated learning, academic achievement, and reduces deterioration of strategies in flipped classrooms: A longitudinal quasi-experiment. Computers & Education , 230 , 105278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105278
• Maryana, M., Halim, C., & Rahmi, H. (2024). The impact of gamification on student participation and learning outcomes in mathematics education. International Journal of Business Law and Education , 5 (2), 1697–1608. https://doi.org/10.56442/ijble.v5i2.682
• Mateos, MB, Hernández, MIS, López, Ó. RG, & Jiménez, JLT (2025). From commitment to achievement: How gamification impacts academic success in higher education. Education Sciences , 15 (8), 1054. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15081054
• Meng, C., Zhao, M., Pan, Z., Pan, Q., & Bonk, CJ (2024). Researching the impact of gamification components on online student engagement. Smart Learning Environments , 11 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00336-3
• Nguyen-Viet, B., Nguyen-Viet, B., Nguyen-Duy, C., Nguyen-Viet, B., & Nguyen-Viet, B. (2024). How does gamification affect learning effectiveness? The mediating roles of engagement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Interactive Learning Environments , 33 (3), 2635–2653. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2414356
• Ortíz-Rojas, M., Chiluiza, K., Valcke, M., & Bolaños-Mendoza, C. (2025). How gamification drives learning in STEM higher education: a mixed methods study. International Journal of STEM Education , 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00521-3
• Shen, Z., Lai, M., & Wang, F. (2024). Investigating the influence of gamification on motivation and learning outcomes in online language learning. Frontiers in Psychology , 15 , 1295709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1295709
• Xiao, Y., & Hew, K.F. (2024). Personalized gamification versus standardized gamification in fully online learning: Effects on students’ motivational, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences , 113 , 102470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102470
• Zhang, F. (2024). Improving ESG learning outcomes through gamification: An experimental study. PLoS ONE , 19 (5), e0303259. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303259