Challenges of Innovation Through Gamification in the Classroom

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major Points for Improvement:

1. Clarify theoretical grounding - While the study references gamification broadly, it lacks explicit theoretical frameworks (e.g., SDT, MDA) to guide design and interpretation. Embedding your discussion within established models can strengthen both construct validity and transferability.
2. Deepen critical analysis by addressing drawbacks and design limitations: You note concerns about rule clarity and long-term retention—consider referencing existing studies that explore when gamification backfires or is ineffective . Reflecting on design trade-offs and risks demonstrates maturity and critical insight.
3. Enhance methodological transparency on sampling and consent
   Provide full descriptions of participant recruitment and characteristics. Detail questions used in the survey and diary prompts. Although anonymity was ensured, include information on ethics approval (e.g., Institutional Review Board or equivalent) to meet rigorous standards.
4. Extend discussion on cognitive and affective mechanisms: Consider integrating recent findings on how gamification fosters flow, metacognition, and meaningful engagement.
5. Structure the limitations section more explicitly - Beyond sample size and design variability, mention potential bias due to voluntary diary submission, seasonal effects, and context specificity. Explore how findings might differ in other disciplines or modalities.
6. Refine organization for clarity and coherence -The lengthy Results and Discussion sections would benefit from clearer thematic subheadings (e.g. “Motivation”, “Collaboration”, “Design Weaknesses”). Consider consolidating repetitive participant quotes and better linking findings to literature in-text rather than only in the Discussion.
7. Define “gamification” early, citing foundational definitions (e.g., Deterding et al., 2011; Hamari et al., 2014)
8. Standardize terminology: use “participants” consistently instead of switching between “students,” “participants,” and “lecturers.”
9. Add figure/tables

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Having completed the revision of our article, “Challenges of innovation through gamification in the classroom” (Manuscript ID: education-3753062), we are pleased to submit the revised version, in which we have addressed all the suggestions and comments provided.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the time and valuable insights provided. The comments have helped us refine and strengthen the manuscript in both its theoretical foundation and methodological clarity. Below, we detail the changes made, which are marked throughout the paper:

1. Reviewer: Clarify theoretical grounding – While the study references gamification broadly, it lacks explicit theoretical frameworks (e.g., SDT, MDA) to guide design and interpretation.

Authors: Done. Firstly, we have introduced Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) and Flow Theory (Csíkszentmihályi, 1988) to provide a psychological foundation for the motivational potential of gamified learning. These frameworks are connected to the observed motivational and emotional responses of participants.

Secondly, we have completed the definition of gamification by integrating game design architectures: the PBL model (Points, Badges, Leaderboards) proposed by Werbach & Hunter (2012) and the MDA framework (Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics) by Hunicke et al. (2004). These models help articulate how specific game elements—such as characters, goals, levels, and rewards—are embedded in educational experiences.

(Sec. 1) It is grounded in motivational theories such as Self-Determination Theory (SDT) by Ryan and Deci (2017) and Flow Theory (Csíkszentmihályi, 1988). SDT includes two sub-theories: Cognitive Evaluation Theory, which examines the effects of social contexts (such as external rewards), and Organismic Integration Theory, which views motivation as a continuum ranging from intrinsic motivation to amotivation, passing through different types of extrinsic motivation (Quintas-Hijós et al, 2023). Gamified learning has been linked to the development of metacognitive and self-regulatory skills, especially when activities require learners to plan, monitor, and evaluate their actions (Çiftci & Yıldız, 2024; Abbassyakhrin et al., 2024; Checa-Romero & Giménez-Lozano, 2022).

Flow is described as an optimal state of experience in which individuals become fully absorbed in the task at hand. Gamification supports these theories by fostering student autonomy and offering extrinsic rewards, thereby promoting deep engagement and commitment (Hamari et al., 2014; Werbach, 2014). It involves designing playful experiences by transforming learning activities into game-like challenges. Recent literature also underlines that gamified learning can foster immersive and emotionally engaging experiences, particularly when learners experience flow states that enhance sustained commitment and deep learning (Cao, 2025; Lüking et al., 2023; Oliveira & Hamari, 2025).

What sets it apart from other game-based methodologies is the use of specific design frameworks drawn from the world of video games. Notable among these are the PBL model (Points, Badges, Leaderboards) proposed by Werbach and Hunter (2012), and the MDA framework (Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics) developed by Hunicke et al. (2004). These models involve the use of characters, rewards, goals, levels and stages to overcome, badges, and objectives (Mendes et al., 2022).

2. Reviewer: Deepen critical analysis by addressing drawbacks and design limitations.

 

Authors: Done. We have added a critical reflection in Section 4.5 (“Limitations and Future Directions”) based on concerns raised by participants and existing literature. Specifically, we discuss the instability of motivational outcomes, dependence on design, and potential risks of cognitive overload and weak retention.

 

A deepen literature review has also been carried on to address this issue, leading to the incorporation of additional references. Selected authors, due to their critical perspective are: Dichev & Dicheva (2017), for their synthesis on the lack of solid empirical evidence on long-term benefits of gamification. Second, Huang et al. (2020): for their meta-analysis highlighting the variability and instability of motivational and behavioral effects depending on design and context.

(Sec. 4.5.2). Although students and teachers reported high levels of engagement, some critical aspects emerged that align with existing literature. Dichev and Dicheva (2017) point out that solid empirical evidence on the long-term benefits of gamification is still lacking, particularly regarding content retention and sustained motivation. Similarly, a meta-analysis by Huang et al. (2020) found that while gamification shows small but significant positive effects on learning outcomes, the motivational and behavioral effects tend to be less stable and heavily dependent on specific design elements and contextual factors. In our study, some students expressed doubts about the long-term retention of knowledge acquired through games and highlighted the risk of losing focus when all activities are gamified. These findings suggest that although gamification can enhance student experience and engagement, its effectiveness relies heavily on thoughtful instructional design and careful integration into broader pedagogical strategies.

3. Reviewer: Enhance methodological transparency on sampling and consent.

 

Authors: Done. Section 2.2 has been revised to include recruitment procedures, group profiles, and sociodemographic characteristics. In Section 2.5, we describe how consent was obtained and data anonymised, according to the 2024 ethics guidelines of the University of Zaragoza. This responds to the request to make ethical procedures explicit. The questionnaire items are presented in Section 2.3.

(Sec. 2.2.) Students were enrolled in a face-to-face course during the first semester of the 2024–2025 academic year. Participation in the gamified experience was part of the regular teaching schedule, and all students were informed of the study’s purpose during the first session. Informed consent was obtained for the use of their learning journals as data for educational research. The sample consisted of 73 undergraduate students. The average age was approximately 20 years (range: 17–24), and the majority were women (around 95%). Students came from two different degree programmes, corresponding to two morning and afternoon groups.

(Sec.2.3.) The questionnaire, (…)It included three open questions focused on the activity students considered most useful for passing the subject, the most valued aspects of the gamified experience, and their agreement or disagreement with the idea that gamification supports academic success, along with a brief justification.

(Sec.2.5.) This study is part of the project Active Methodologies as a Tool for Motivation and Academic Success at the University of Zaragoza. It involved higher education students in regular university courses and used two data sources: learning/teaching diaries and an anonymous online questionnaire.

All participants were informed of the study’s aims, data protection measures, and the academic use of the data. Participation was voluntary and had no impact on academic assessment. Written consent was obtained for the use of the diaries, and explicit consent was collected via a preliminary question in the online survey (see Supplementary Material).

No personal or sensitive data were gathered. All identifying information was removed before analysis. Teaching diaries were analysed by researchers other than their authors to ensure neutrality. According to the University of Zaragoza’s 2024 ethics guidelines, studies of this nature do not require ethics committee approval.

4. Reviewer: Extend discussion on cognitive and affective mechanisms: flow, metacognition, engagement.

 

Authors: Done. In Sections 4.1 and 4.4, we explore how gamification fosters meaningful engagement and metacognitive strategies. The following authors and studies were added: Cao (2025) and Oliveira & Hamari (2025): for their findings on the relationship between flow and emotional involvement in gamified tasks; Lüking et al. (2023): for the link between flow and balanced challenges in game design; Çiftci & Yıldız (2024) and Abbassyakhrin et al. (2024): for evidence on how gamification fosters planning, reflection, and cognitive regulation; Checa-Romero & Giménez-Lozano (2022): for their review on video games and metacognitive development in educational contexts.

(Sec. 4.1.) The results show that students rated the gamification experience in class positively, reporting a beneficial impact on several aspects of the learning process. One of the most relevant findings is the widespread recognition that tools such as Genially and Socrative enhanced understanding and retention of complex content. This positive evaluation can be interpreted through the lens of Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017). According to SDT, motivation increases when three basic psychological needs are fulfilled: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. The dynamics implemented in the activity allowed students to make decisions, collaborate in teams, and experience a sense of progress in their tasks. As a result, all three motivational components were reinforced. In particular, the use of the Escape Room and Jumanji games helped transform educational legislation into more accessible and collaborative learning experiences. In this regard, cooperative work was also highly valued, with students highlighting that the activities encouraged communication and collective strategy-building.

Recent contributions to Flow Theory highlight the role of intrinsic motivation and emotional engagement in gamified environments. Cao (2025) emphasizes that prior game experience enhances positive emotions and fosters flow states. Similarly, Lüking et al. (2023) and Oliveira and Hamari (2025) report that flow arises when challenges align with learners' skills, leading to deeper engagement and satisfaction. Although our study did not measure flow directly, participants’ spontaneous reports—such as enjoyment, loss of time awareness, and the desire to repeat activities—suggest the presence of flow-like experiences, reinforcing the value of gamification when aligned with students' autonomy and interests.

Another range of studies suggest that gamified learning environments also enhance metacognitive development. Çiftci & Yıldız (2024) demonstrated that involving students in digital game design using metacognitive strategies—such as planning, predicting, monitoring, and evaluating—led to significant improvements in both academic performance and metacognitive awareness. Abbassyakhrin et al. (2024) showed that game-based activities designed with metacognitive scaffolding helped learners regulate cognitive load and engage in reflective thinking throughout the learning process. In a broader synthesis, Checa-Romero & Giménez-Lozano (2022) found that video games designed for educational purposes can effectively support the development of 21st-century skills, including metacognition, particularly when they include tasks that require strategic decision-making, self-assessment, and reflection. These findings align with our own observations, as participants in our study often reported moments of planning, evaluation, and adjustment during the gamified sessions, suggesting that such activities may also foster metacognitive habits essential to autonomous and meaningful learning.

(Sec.4.4.) Regarding classroom climate, the teaching team noted that pair work was key to maintaining structure and order, facilitating cooperation. Games were also important for shifting the classroom atmosphere when students expressed academic stress. Teachers pointed out that although the classroom climate was initially calm, the introduction of group games and interactive dynamics brought noise and apparent disorder. Cool-down activities were suggested and seen as necessary. The combination of interaction and concentration was viewed positively. Both students and teachers reported a more positive attitude towards classes and a relaxed, supportive environment, highlighting improved communication. In this regard, some studies suggest that it is the relationship between educational stakeholders that fosters commitment and motivation (Mejías-García et al., 2019). The coexistence of moments of noise, intense concentration, and shared emotions in the classroom can be interpreted through the lens of Flow Theory (Csíkszentmihályi, 1988). This framework describes the flow state as an optimal experience of cognitive and emotional engagement, triggered by clear goals, immediate feedback, and a balance between challenge and skill. Observational indicators—such as the need for cool-down activities after group games or students’ full immersion in the task—align with this theoretical model. Recent literature on gamified learning environments reinforces the interpretation of such activation patterns as markers of flow dynamics (Lüking et al., 2023).

5. Reviewer: Structure the limitations section more explicitly.

 

Authors: Done. We have restructured the limitations into a new section (4.5), organized with the following five thematic subheadings: (4.5.1) Dependence on Design and Perception, (4.5.2) Concerns about Retention and Motivation, (4.5.3) Voluntariness and Sample Limitations, (4.5.4) Temporal and Contextual Specificity, y (4.5.5) Disciplinary Scope and Transferability. This structure facilitates readability and reflects the risks identified in both participant narratives and literature.

 

6. Reviewer: Refine organization for clarity and coherence.

 

Authors: Done. In response to the reviewer’s comment, the Discussion section (Section 4) has been reorganised into five thematic subsections to enhance clarity and alignment with the Results section. The new structure includes: 4.1. Student Perceptions and Learning Outcomes; 4.2. Teacher Observations and Activity Design; 4.3. Development of Skills through Gamification; 4.4. Classroom Climate and Emotional Engagement and 4.5. Limitations and Future Directions, which in turn is divided into five focused subcategories as mentioned before.

7. Reviewer: Define “gamification” early, citing foundational definitions (e.g., Deterding et al., 2011; Hamari et al., 2014).

 

Authors: Done. We now include a clear and concise definition of gamification in the second paragraph of the Introduction, with appropriate references to Deterding et al. (2011) and Hamari et al. (2014) and (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015).

(Sec.1) Some authors define it as a phenomenon that involves creating playful practices (Hamari et al., 2014). One of the key characteristics of this methodology is the use of game elements, such as badges, leaderboards, or feedback during gameplay (Deterding et al., 2011). While the design of gamification is characterized by self-purpose and hedonic goals, its ultimate aim is to support extrinsic and valuable outcomes beyond the gamified system itself, such as learning a subject (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015).

8. Reviewer: Standardize terminology.

 

Authors: Regarding the recommendation to standardize terminology, we acknowledge the importance of consistent language. In our case, the term ‘participants’ is used when referring collectively to both groups involved in the study: students and teachers. The terms ‘students’ and ‘teachers’ are employed intentionally to distinguish between their respective perspectives, as the analysis incorporates both viewpoints. We have revised the manuscript to ensure this usage remains coherent throughout.

 

9. Reviewer: Add figure/tables.

 

Authors: Regarding the suggestion to add tables or figures, a summary table of the identified categories is already included in the manuscript (Table 1). We agree that visual aids improve clarity and would be open to including an additional figure illustrating the design or analytical process if the editorial team considers it necessary.

We hope we have responded to each of your contributions and remain at your disposal for any further information or requests you may have. Thank you once again for your dedication, interest and comments on our work.

Kind Regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Education sciences- 3753062

Comments to the Author:

Thank you for your submission. It reads well and the article have an interesting story to tell.

The aim of the study is clearly stated, but there is no explicit research question, something that the author must reconsider.

The sample, and the description of the method used in the study is clearly outlined.

An inductive analysis inspires by Grounded Theory is clearly describes in a step-by-step procedure. The authors also report potential limitation, and report bias something that strengthen the study’s reliability and trustworthiness. There is sufficient data presented to support the findings, and the discussion is logical in relation to the aim of the study. But as mentioned earlier, a research question would have further enhanced the scientific quality of the study.

Overall, this is a good scientific work and recommend accept after minor revisions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive and constructive feedback, which we greatly appreciate.

Regarding your suggestion to include an explicit research question, we have revised the final part of the Introduction accordingly. The study now includes the following research questions, which clarify the focus of the analysis and its alignment with the inductive and dual-perspective approach adopted:

How is a gamified university teaching experience perceived by the students and teachers involved?

To what extent is the time and effort invested in implementing this methodology considered worthwhile?

These questions allow us to frame the inquiry more precisely and guide the presentation of results.

Thank you once again for your valuable contribution.

Kind regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The document is a valuable contribution to the field of gamification in higher education, with a solid study and relevant results in the field. The above suggestions for improvement are intended to maximize the impact of the document in the area studied.

My personal evaluation is that the article could be published with minor changes.

General improvements to the document:

1.- Although it is mentioned that gamification presents challenges, the introduction could be a little more explicit about the gap in the literature that this study aims to address.

2.- Regarding the theoretical foundation and the coding process, it would be useful to detail how the emerging categories relate to the main categories and thus contribute to a more in-depth study of the gamification experience.

3.- To give greater credibility to the results and the power of triangulation, it could be explored how the data from the three sources (open questionnaire, student diaries, and teacher diaries) complement each other or, if applicable, diverges more explicitly within the analysis of each main category.

4.- The discussion section reiterates the findings mentioned in the results without adding a more in-depth interpretation of them or connection to the literature to clarify what was found (results), what the results mean, and their interpretation.

5.- In the section on limitations and future suggestions, specific instruments for measuring the state of flow could be suggested.

Regards

Author Response

Comment 1. Clarification of the literature gap in the Introduction
Response 1. We revised the Introduction (p. 3) to make the research gap explicit. The new paragraph explains the limited attention to the teacher’s role in designing and carrying out gamified experiences in higher education, noting that most studies are quantitative or focus on other educational levels.

Comment 2. Relation of emerging categories to main categories
Response 2. In section 2.4 Data Analysis (pp. 4–5) we detailed how emerging codes (motivation, conceptual understanding, active participation, critical thinking) were integrated into the main categories. Table 1 was updated accordingly to include these elements.

Comment 3. Triangulation of data sources in the Results
Response 3. We added integrative statements in each Results subsection (3.1–3.5) to show how data from the questionnaire, student diaries, and teacher diaries complement or differ from one another.

Comment 4. Deeper interpretation and connection to the literature in the Discussion
Response 4. We enriched Discussion sections 4.1–4.3 with references to motivational and metacognitive theories, flow, and deep learning. New paragraphs interpret the findings in relation to students’ emotional engagement, prior play experiences, and the social dimension of cooperative games.

Comment 5. Instruments for measuring flow in Limitations and Future Research
Response 5. Section 4.5.5 was expanded to suggest quantitative instruments for assessing flow in future research (Flow Short Scale and EduFlow Scale).

A separate document with a full, detailed response to each comment is attached (Revision letter239254). All new references have been added to the reference list and all changes are highlighted in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf