Evidence Without Hype, Gamified Quizzing in EFL and ESL Classrooms in Low-Input Contexts, a Critical Review and Minimum Reporting Standards

Abstract

This review examines the contemporary evidence on digital gamification’s effect on English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a second language (ESL) classrooms’ outcome. The study focuses on vocabulary and other course-integrated skills in low-input contexts. We synthesise findings from education-wide meta-analyses and recent language-specific studies using a narrative approach organised by four questions on learning performance, classroom dynamics, student perceptions, and teacher practices. Across sources, gamification is associated with minor improvements in assessed performance, particularly in vocabulary and reading. Studies also frequently report gains in motivation and moment-to-moment classroom energy. These benefits are not uniform. Effects depend on element mixes, social format, pacing, and assessment timing, and they can taper with repeated use. Evidence on durability remains limited because immediate post-tests dominate and delayed outcomes are scarce. Most studies rely on perception surveys or platform logs rather than systematic observation. Students typically report enjoyment and usefulness with low to moderate anxiety, while teachers highlight the value of quick feedback and predictable routines alongside practical constraints such as preparation time, connectivity, class size, and tool fit. We propose minimum reporting standards that specify dose, element configuration, social design, assessment windows, reliability, inclusion context, and low-tech fallbacks. Better reporting and longer follow-ups are needed to separate short spikes from durable learning.

1. Introduction

Gamification in language classrooms is understood as adding game-like elements to lessons to support attention, effort, and practice (Deterding et al., 2011; Werbach & Hunter, 2015). Gamification differs from rapid-response quizzing in that the former constitutes a broader set of design principles that target deeper cognitive and socioemotional processes while the latter is an operationalisation of game mechanics that tests learners’ knowledge levels. Liang (2024) notes that speed and accuracy often go together in gamified learning environments. In practical terms, teachers often use timed quizzes, points, leaderboards, audio, and quick feedback to energise participation and manage turn-taking (Wang & Tahir, 2020). According to Wang and Tahir (2020), such features commonly raise motivation, participation, and perceived learning. However, they can also introduce issues such as stressful time pressure, readability problems on shared screens, and guessing when speed is rewarded.

Across education, more broadly, the quantitative picture is encouraging but small in magnitude. Sailer and Homner (2020) reported significant positive effects of gamification on cognitive outcomes (g = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.30, 0.69]), motivational outcomes (g = 0.36, 95% CI [0.18, 0.54]), and behavioural outcomes (g = 0.25, 95% CI [0.04, 0.46]). These results suggest practical value, yet the authors also noted that motivational and behavioural effects were less stable in stricter subsamples, and that very few studies used delayed post-tests, which limit claims about endurance (Sailer & Homner, 2020). For language learning, specifically, the review did not run second language (L2) or EFL subgroup analyses, so transfer should be made carefully.

Evidence that targets EFL/ESL directly appears mixed but generally positive for engagement and common skills. S. Zhang and Hasim (2023) synthesised 40 empirical studies in EFL/ESL and found frequent gains in motivation, engagement, and language areas like vocabulary and grammar. However, they also noted uneven effects in some outcomes. Teachers and learners reported technical constraints and design frictions, for example, connectivity, tool usability, and the risk that leaderboards can unsettle some learners (S. Zhang & Hasim, 2023). Luo (2023) similarly showed that gamified tools in foreign language learning could support achievement and emotional engagement. Nevertheless, they reported heterogeneity in element choices, occasional demotivation, and weak coverage of cognitive engagement measures across studies.

Two practical design points recur. First, combining competition with collaboration tends to be safer than pure competition. Sailer and Homner (2020) observed that team-based competitive–collaborative setups outperformed competition alone for behavioural indicators. Wang and Tahir (2020) also discussed team play as a way to ease anxiety. Second, meaningful feedback and game fiction can matter for on-task behaviour even though effects on knowledge and motivation were less consistent in moderator tests (Sailer & Homner, 2020). At the same time, frequency of use, context, and duration may shape results. For instance, repeated use of the same quiz format can lead to a wear-out in classroom dynamics. It is also possible that motivational gains may need longer exposure to show reliably (Sailer & Homner, 2020; Wang & Tahir, 2020).

The use of gamification tools support L2 learning through the mechanisms predicted by the self-determination theory (SDT). The theory holds that the motivation of learners occurs when they experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Gao, 2024). While autonomy relates to the freedom to set own goals, competence denotes self-efficacy beliefs whereas relatedness constitutes the human need for social connection (Krath et al., 2021). Gamification supports all the three needs in different ways. For example, gamification allows learners to control their goals and learning, which promotes autonomy and competence while also allowing interactive learning to foster relatedness (Krath et al., 2021). Thus, gamification promotes cognitive and socioemotional processes that are essential to learning.

Even though scientific evidence shows that digital gamification in EFL and ESL classrooms can be effective, evidence regarding practical implementation remains limited and fragmented. The effects are often variable due to the effects of social formats, pacing, and assessment timing. Nevertheless, few studies have systematically documented these factors and the role of contextual constraints in a unified approach. These gaps hinder the development of evidence-based guidance for educators, hence the need for the present review. This review follows Wang and Tahir’s organising questions and applies them to contemporary EFL/ESL classrooms. We consider effects on learning performance, classroom dynamics, students’ perceptions, and teachers’ perceptions. Throughout, we treat the overall tone as cautiously optimistic. Reported benefits are plausible and often replicated (Luo, 2023; Sailer & Homner, 2020). Still, measurement limits, novelty effects, and positivity bias in the published records advise restraint when generalising beyond specific setups or platforms (Wang & Tahir, 2020; S. Zhang & Hasim, 2023).

Guided by prior syntheses, we organise the review around four questions that capture performance, in-class behaviour, learner experience, and teacher practice.

Research Questions

• RQ1. To what extent does digital gamification improve assessed EFL/ESL performance in course-integrated tasks such as vocabulary, reading, grammar, or combined skills?
• RQ2. How does gamification shape participation, attention, and on-task behaviour during lessons?
• RQ3. How do students perceive gamified activities in terms of motivation, enjoyment, usefulness, fairness, and anxiety?
• RQ4. How do teachers evaluate gamification with respect to feasibility, workload, assessment alignment, and classroom management?

2. Methods and Approaches

This review adopts a narrative approach that organises findings by four guiding questions about learning performance, classroom dynamics, student perceptions, and teacher perceptions. The structure follows the logic used in prior syntheses on classroom quizzing while expanding the scope to EFL/ESL contexts and tools beyond a single platform (Wang & Tahir, 2020). To anchor claims in broader education research, we consulted a quantitative meta-analysis of gamification effects and recent EFL-/ESL-focused reviews (Luo, 2023; Sailer & Homner, 2020; S. Zhang & Hasim, 2023).

Searches targeted peer-reviewed journal articles on digital gamification in EFL/ESL. Databases included Scopus, Web of Science, and subject-relevant outlets indexed in these services. We combined terms for gamification and classroom quizzing with EFL/ESL keywords, for example “gamification” OR “game-elements” OR “Kahoot” OR “Quizizz” AND “EFL” OR “ESL” OR “second language” OR “foreign language”. We also screened the reference lists of key reviews and primary studies to locate additional items (Luo, 2023; Wang & Tahir, 2020; S. Zhang & Hasim, 2023). The time window covered the past ten years to capture current platforms and classroom practices.

Studies were eligible if they

• examined digital gamification in English language learning contexts,
• involved classroom or course-integrated activities rather than standalone entertainment,
• reported empirical outcomes on learning, engagement, or affect, and
• were peer-reviewed journal articles in English.

We excluded work on full game-based learning or serious games when the intervention was a complete game rather than game elements added to instruction, and we excluded editorials, theses, and non-empirical reports. This decision aligns with distinctions drawn in prior reviews between “gamification” and “games” (Luo, 2023; Sailer & Homner, 2020).

Titles and abstracts were screened first, followed by a full-text review against the criteria. We prioritised studies that mapped to at least one of the four organising questions. Where multiple papers reported the same cohort or dataset, we retained the most complete report.

Data extraction followed a structured protocol. For each study, we extracted the following: information such as the study setting, participant profiles, duration, focal skill or construct, instruments and their reliability if reported, assessment timing, gamification elements, and outcomes. To maintain comparability with education-wide evidence, we noted whether social interaction was individual, competitive, collaborative, team-based, or competitive–collaborative. We also determined whether any game fiction or narrative layer was included, as these features can moderate observable behaviours (Sailer & Homner, 2020). For quiz-based tools, we recorded points, timers, audio, leaderboards, and frequency of use, as these features affect concentration, enjoyment, and classroom climate (Wang & Tahir, 2020). Findings were then allocated to the four RQs.

We recorded basic design features such as randomisation, control or comparison conditions, pre-post designs, and delayed testing where available. Following cautions in the literature, we noted small samples, short durations, and limited reporting of instrument validity as threats to interpretation in EFL/ESL studies (Luo, 2023; S. Zhang & Hasim, 2023). We also flagged quasi-experimental designs and immediate post-test-only designs, since such features can inflate short-run effects or leave retention unknown (Sailer & Homner, 2020).

Because EFL/ESL interventions vary in platform, element mix, and assessment timing, we synthesised narratively by RQ, highlighting convergent patterns, counter-examples, and contextual moderators. Quantitative benchmarks from broader education research informed cautions about likely effect sizes and stability over time, especially given the limited use of delayed post-tests (Sailer & Homner, 2020). Within RQ sections, we balance positive findings with null or mixed results to reduce optimism bias that is common in platform-specific literature (Luo, 2023; Wang & Tahir, 2020).

In assessing the methodological quality of the studies, a critical evaluation of robustness was conducted and integrated in the results and discussion sections. In the methodological quality evaluation, we recognised the inherent limitations of individual studies. For example, the review relied on published articles and may therefore reflect positivity bias and uneven reporting standards, as noted by earlier syntheses of both quizzing and gamified tools (Luo, 2023; Wang & Tahir, 2020). Other limitations include heterogeneity in interventions, brief durations, and scarce delayed outcomes. These could constrain claims about durability and transfer to long-term vocabulary or reading retention (Sailer & Homner, 2020; S. Zhang & Hasim, 2023).

A PRISMA-style approach was used in the study selection process for this review. Database searches initially identified 312 records across education and language learning databases. After removing 68 duplicates, 244 titles and abstracts were screened for relevance. Ultimately, 78 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 33 were excluded due to focus on non-classroom settings or insufficient reporting of gamification interventions. The remaining 45 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the final synthesis (n = 45). Data extraction captured study characteristics, gamification elements, outcome measures, assessment timing, and contextual constraints. Extracted data were checked for accuracy and consistency. Although formal quality appraisal was not conducted, studies were evaluated for sample size, measurement reliability, and clarity of intervention reporting. A narrative review approach was used for reporting the findings. The choice of a narrative review approach was informed by the nature of the studies that met the inclusion criteria. These studies showed heterogeneity across study designs, outcomes, and reporting practices. Also, the studies had varied participant groups, gamification tools, and measurement instruments. So, it was not possible to mix the heterogenous studies for common statistical analysis. A narrative approach allowed us to integrate the evidence across these heterogenous studies and highlight patterns for a richer contextual understanding. The formal process of article selection helped to minimise bias in the review process. Figure 1 below highlights the process of article selection.

3. Results

3.1. RQ1: Learning Performance

Gamification is generally associated with small positive gains in learning, with the strongest and most stable effects observed for cognitive outcomes. But, motivational and behavioural effects appear smaller and less robust when only high-rigour studies are considered (Sailer & Homner, 2020). Framed around classroom quizzing, many primary studies report improved test performance, motivation, and engagement. However, most rely on immediate post-tests and a subset flag “wear-out” when one format is repeated (Wang & Tahir, 2020). Two recent meta-/systematic syntheses extend this backdrop. An education-wide meta-analysis reports overall positive effects moderated by design and duration (Li et al., 2023). Similarly, an EFL-/ESL-specific review finds generally positive performance and motivation patterns but highlights nulls, technical constraints, and design frictions (S. Zhang & Hasim, 2023). A second FL-focused review characterises effectiveness as mixed, with measurement gaps for deeper cognitive engagement (Luo, 2023).

Language-specific primaries show both gains and limits. In university reading, a 16-week design using points, badges, leaderboards, and structured group activities outperformed a traditional format in terms of reading proficiency and increased enjoyment. However, no delayed test was included (Cheng et al., 2025). Mobile- or platform-based vocabulary interventions also frequently show advantages in immediate or delayed outcomes. For example, Taiwanese university learners using a gamified app outperformed those using a non-gamified version on immediate and 2-week delayed vocabulary (Chen et al., 2019). Out-of-class digital flashcards delivered significant gains over paper lists over 4 months, with a 2-month delayed test (Zakian et al., 2022). Additionally, a 10-week computer-based vocabulary mode outperformed traditional paper-based teaching at post-test and 1-month delay (Wu, 2024). At primary levels, a cooperative digital system improved both immediate and 3-week delayed vocabulary compared to traditional teaching (Patra et al., 2022). By contrast, a 4-week Quizizz vocabulary practice produced no overall advantage over paper study, despite some weekly wins (Panmei & Waluyo, 2022). Similarly, a study equating digital and paper text-based games for incidental vocabulary found comparable outcomes, with flow and working memory, not digitisation, driving effects (Karimi & Nasouri, 2024).

Delayed-test evidence helps separate short-run boosts from durability. An 11-week delayed test favoured a collaborative simulation game over flashcards despite no immediate advantage, suggesting that deeper encoding can surface later (Franciosi et al., 2016). In media-comparison work with academic vocabulary, augmented reality immediately outperformed a digital app, but not a paper game, and group differences attenuated by one and three weeks (Jia et al., 2025). A narrative role-playing (RPG) vocabulary study linked engagement to both immediate and one-week delayed outcomes in a single-group design (R. Zhang et al., 2023). Still, not all digital interventions perform better. For instance, a crossover with children reported that non-digital, collaborative play outperformed an individual, competitive app in terms of immediate and 2-week delayed vocabulary (Naderi & Moafian, 2023). These patterns call caution in result interpretation. Specifically, they suggest that element configuration, social format, task–technology fit matter, and durable gains are not always guaranteed (Luo, 2023; Sailer & Homner, 2020).

Design features appear to moderate performance. Team-based competitive–collaborative formats are preferable to pure competition for performance-adjacent behaviours (Sailer & Homner, 2020). In quiz ecosystems, points, audio, and leaderboards often raise concentration and engagement, but repeated use can lead to wear-out, and time pressure may induce guessing (Wang & Tahir, 2020). In Web-2.0 settings, gamified tools meaningfully increased motivation yet did not significantly raise achievement vs. a non-gamified control (Temel & Cesur, 2024). This means that affective gains may not always translate to performance. Education-wide moderation analyses suggest longer exposures and fuller design mixes (mechanics + dynamics + aesthetics) perform better (Li et al., 2023; Luo, 2023; Sailer & Homner, 2020; S. Zhang & Hasim, 2023). However, most EFL/ESL studies remain short and light on delayed measures.

Finally, ecological and methodological constraints affect claims. A mixed-methods EFL study with early teens reported large advantages for a digital gamified condition on achievement and enjoyment (Liu et al., 2024). But the study used a small sample and no delayed follow-up. Elsewhere, a Quizizz vocabulary trial with Thai undergraduates found no overall gain (Panmei & Waluyo, 2022). An online EFL course that rotated Kahoot!, Quizizz, Socrative, and Mentimeter was found to improve motivation without significantly improving achievement at post-test (Temel & Cesur, 2024). Across the corpus, immediate testing dominates; where delayed tests exist, directions vary. Some favour digital, some show parity with paper, and some prefer well-designed non-digital collaborative play (Chen et al., 2019; Franciosi et al., 2016; Jia et al., 2025; Naderi & Moafian, 2023; Patra et al., 2022; Wu, 2024; Zakian et al., 2022). The prudent reading for RQ1 is that gamification can improve EFL/ESL performance when mechanics align with task goals and social design reduces counterproductive competition. Still, gains depend on element mix, duration, tool–task fit, and assessment timing (Karimi & Nasouri, 2024; Liu et al., 2024; Panmei & Waluyo, 2022; Sailer & Homner, 2020).

Table 1. Summary of RQ1 studies (skills, design, timing, main outcome, social/competition notes).

Study	Skill/Focus	Design and N	Post-Test Timing	Main Performance Outcome	Social/Competition Features
Sailer and Homner (2020)	Cross-domain learning (cognitive/motivational/behavioural)	Meta-analysis (k = 38; 40 exps)	Mostly immediate; rare delayed	Small positive effects overall; cognitive most robust	Competitive–collaborative > pure competition for behavioural; fiction helps behaviour
Wang and Tahir (2020)	Quiz-based learning (multi-discipline; incl. EFL)	Narrative review (93 studies)	Mostly immediate	Predominantly positive; wear-out and time-pressure issues	Individual competition common; team play can reduce anxiety
Li et al. (2023)	Education-wide learning outcomes	Meta-analysis	Unclear delayed reporting	Positive overall; stronger with longer duration and fuller designs	Social dynamics important; specifics not coded
S. Zhang and Hasim (2023)	EFL/ESL performance and affect	Systematic review (40 studies)	Mixed; limited delayed	Frequent gains; also nulls where design/tech frictions occur	Competition may unsettle some learners
Luo (2023)	FL gamified tools effectiveness	Systematic review (21 studies)	Mixed; some longitudinal	Mixed effectiveness; gaps in cognitive engagement measures	Heterogeneous element mixes; risk of “pointsification”
Cheng et al. (2025)	Reading proficiency (HE)	Quasi-exp., 16 weeks, N = 220	Immediate only	Gamified > traditional on reading; enjoyment up	Competitive + collaborative class games; points/badges/leaderboards
Panmei and Waluyo (2022)	Vocabulary (HE)	Quasi-exp., 4 weeks, N = 100	Weekly immediate	No overall gain vs. paper; some weekly wins	Quizizz features incl. timers/leaderboards; individual play
Liu et al. (2024)	Mixed skills; enjoyment; ideal L2 self (young EFL)	Mixed-methods RCT, N = 36	Immediate only	Digital gamified > non-digital gamified on all outcomes	Points, badges, leaderboards; some collaboration
Chen et al. (2019)	Vocabulary (HE)	App RCT-style, N = 20	Immediate + 2-week delay	Gamified app > non-gamified app at both times	Individual + leaderboard; mini-games; competition elements
Franciosi et al. (2016)	Vocabulary (HE)	Quasi-exp., N ≈ 162	1-week + 11-week delay	No immediate gain; delayed advantage for simulation	Collaborative team play in simulation; control individual flashcards
Jia et al. (2025)	Academic vocabulary (HE)	Quasi-exp., N = 90	Immediate + 1- and 3-week delay	AR > digital app immediately; parity with paper; attenuates over time	Individual play; no explicit leaderboards/timers
Naderi and Moafian (2023)	Vocabulary (primary)	Quasi-exp. crossover, N = 40	Immediate + 2-week delay	Non-digital collaborative > digital individual at both times	Digital individual/competitive vs. non-digital cooperative
Wu (2024)	Vocabulary (HE)	Quasi-exp., 10 weeks, N = 58	Immediate + 1-month delay	Computer-based > paper at both times	Individual, strategy-rich computer tasks; no competition
Patra et al. (2022)	Vocabulary (primary)	Quasi-exp., 9 sessions, N = 50	Immediate + 3-week delay	Digital cooperative > traditional	Cooperative play; no explicit competitive mechanics
Zakian et al. (2022)	Vocabulary (HE; out-of-class)	Quasi-exp., 4 months, N = 86	Immediate + 2-month delay	Digital flashcards > paper; some decline at delay	Individual, spaced repetition; no competition
Karimi and Nasouri (2024)	Incidental vocabulary (HE)	Quasi-exp., N = 57	Immediate + 2-week delay	Digital text-based game ≈ paper text-based game; flow and WMC matter	Individual; narrative choices; no competition
Temel and Cesur (2024)	Motivation and achievement (HE, online)	Quasi-exp., N = 60	Immediate only	Motivation ↑; achievement NS vs. control	Mostly individual competition via leaderboards

summarises the outcomes of key studies reviewed.

The evidence summarised above shows the potential gains in L2 performance from gamified quizzing and related interventions. However, the findings must be interpreted in recognition of inherent methodological limitations in the reviewed studies. Most studies rely heavily on immediate post-test procedures that could limit an evaluation of whether observed improvements reflect short-term novelty or long-term learning. Also, the studies include those with quasi-experimental designs and small or convenience samples, which might reduce internal and external validity. Moreover, the measures of cognitive engagement, reliability of assessment instruments, and detailed reporting of task alignment are at times insufficient in some of the studies and this makes cross-study comparisons challenging. Therefore, despite the promising performance effects, the robustness of evidence is moderate at best and caution is advised in generalising the results beyond the studied contexts and specific gamified designs.

3.2. RQ2: Classroom Dynamics

Table 2. Evidence on classroom dynamics in (and around) EFL/ESL gamified instruction.

Cluster	Studies	Mode	Typical Mechanics	How Dynamics Were Measured	Key Takeaway
Meta/reviews	(Sailer & Homner, 2020; Wang & Tahir, 2020)	Mixed	Timers, points, leaderboards; comp/collab/comp-collab; fiction	Syntheses and moderator analyses	Livelier sessions; competitive–collab > competition on behavioural indicators; fiction supports on-task effort; manage time pressure.
In-person HE	(Aldubayyan & Aljebreen, 2025; Chiang, 2020; Sadeghi et al., 2022; Waluyo & Balazon, 2024)	Face-to-face	20–60 s timers, points, team play, leaderboards, rewards	Surveys, tests, interviews; item feedback	Structured turn-taking and energy ↑; some stress with speed/competition; teamwork steadies participation.
Online HE	(Anane, 2024; Dindar et al., 2021; Fahada & Asrul, 2024; Mat Husin & Azmuddin, 2022)	Fully online	Kahoot/Quizizz; daily app tasks (points/badges/leaderboards); coop vs. comp	Surveys; app logs; group messages	Energy ↑; cooperation → stronger relatedness and richer messaging; connectivity/usability can disrupt flow.
Blended/logs	(Cigdem et al., 2024; Zainuddin et al., 2020)	Blended/in-person	Weekly leaderboards/timed e-quizzes; badges; team races	LMS logs; surveys/interviews; performance	Completion ↑ and more homogeneous attempts ; later quizzes ↑; anonymity broadens shy students’ voices; some novelty tapers.
Edge cases	(Alfares, 2025; Al-Hoorie & Albijadi, 2025)	Out-of-class/K-12	RPG app (avatars, time limits); Wordwall	App logs and tests; no interaction coding	Vocabulary gains but little in in-class interaction; out-of-class gains may fade by delayed tests.
Course-wide rotation	(Temel & Cesur, 2024)	Online	Rotating Web-2.0 quizzes	ANCOVA on motivation; achievement test	Motivation/climate ↑ even when achievement NS; pacing/variety matter.

below shows the evidence across literature sources regarding the impact of gamified instructions on classroom dynamics. Across EFL/ESL classrooms, gamified sessions tend to feel livelier and more structured. Reviews of Kahoot-based lessons report frequent boosts in attention, participation, and enjoyment during class time, with faster feedback cycles and clearer turn-taking (Wang & Tahir, 2020). Teachers also note improved whole-class energy, though time pressure and readability can be obstacles (Wang & Tahir, 2020). In broader education, social formats matter because team-based competitive–collaborative setups outperform pure competition on behavioural indicators. Additionally, narrative layers can support task persistence, especially when behaviour is recorded during lessons (Sailer & Homner, 2020).

Within EFL/ESL, in-class collaboration often feels safer than leaderboards alone. Some learners report that competition discourages them, whereas collaborative routines can reduce anxiety and support relatedness (Aldubayyan & Aljebreen, 2025; Waluyo & Balazon, 2024). Tool choices and element mixes vary greatly, which influences observable dynamics. Studies tend to focus on emotional engagement and visible activity, while deeper cognitive engagement is less often measured directly (Chiang, 2020; Sadeghi et al., 2022; Waluyo & Balazon, 2024). Rotating Web-2.0 quiz tools in an online EFL course raised motivation without a corresponding achievement gain, implying that affective and interaction benefits can outpace short-run performance (Temel & Cesur, 2024). Brief quiz cycles can also backfire when they are over repeated, leading to small “wear-out” patterns and guessing under strict timers, as noted in classroom reports and syntheses (Wang & Tahir, 2020). Additionally, leaderboard effects can diminish over weeks (Cigdem et al., 2024).

Two practical cautions follow. First, frequency and pacing matter, as well as varying formats and balancing individual play with team play (Cigdem et al., 2024; Sailer & Homner, 2020; Wang & Tahir, 2020). This helps to preserve novelty while keeping feedback quick. Second, equity matters. This is due to the fact that collaboration and anonymity features can bring quieter learners into the conversation. Yet, poorly tuned competition or crowded visual layouts can shut them down. Common frictions include network stability, screen readability, and time-pressure fairness (Anane, 2024; Chiang, 2020; Fahada & Asrul, 2024; Mat Husin & Azmuddin, 2022).

Overall, most “classroom dynamics” evidence comes from perception surveys or platform logs rather than fine-grained observation. In-person cycles with timers, points, and leaderboards typically energise sessions, but behaviour is rarely coded directly (Chiang, 2020; Sadeghi et al., 2022; Waluyo & Balazon, 2024). Online cohorts show similar moment-to-moment boosts, tempered by connectivity and pacing constraints (Anane, 2024; Fahada & Asrul, 2024; Mat Husin & Azmuddin, 2022). Log-based studies add objective signals. Leaderboards initially increase completion before tapering (Cigdem et al., 2024). Alternating paper and gamified e-quizzes is linked to rising performance and higher self-reported engagement, with anonymity drawing out shy students (Zainuddin et al., 2020). Cooperative vs. competitive setups can also shift social relatedness and messaging volumes even without teacher orchestration (Dindar et al., 2021). Other studies show that an out-of-class RPG app showed early gains that faded at delay, offering no in-class interaction data (Al-Hoorie & Albijadi, 2025). Elsewhere, Wordwall improved outcomes without operationalising turn-taking (Alfares, 2025).

The evidence generally suggests that gamified sessions could enhance classroom energy, participation, and attention. Still, this one must take caution of the limitations of methodological constraints. Many studies rely predominantly on self-reported perceptions or platform logs rather than systematic behavioural observation, and this may restrict confidence in claims about sustained changes in classroom dynamics. Again, the generalisability of the results could be affected by limited sample sizes and adoption of quasi-experimental designs. It is also notable that a few studies include longitudinal or delayed observations, which means that novelty effects and wear-out patterns may affect apparent gains. Thus, while gamification appears to positively shape in-class dynamics in the short term, the evidence for durable or transferable behavioural effects remains moderate and insufficient to draw strong conclusions.

3.3. RQ3: Students’ Perceptions

Across the set, learners consistently say gamified activities feel enjoyable, motivating, and less anxiety-provoking, especially when feedback is immediate (

Table 3. Students’ perceptions: Affective, perceived learning, and practicality across studies.

Study	Affective (Enjoyment, Motivation, Anxiety)	Perceived Learning (Understanding, Feedback, Pace)	Practicality and Fairness (Usability, Access, Timing, Leaderboard)	Evidence Type/Notes
Rojabi et al. (2022)	“Fun,” “exciting,” not boring; high engagement (M = 3.95) and motivation (M = 4.09).	Immediate feedback valued; felt pushed to learn topics correctly.	Time limits frustrating; unstable internet; room-size caps; some items difficult.	Student quotes + Likert means.
Phan and Tran (2024)	Teachers report students enjoy Kahoot; motivation up; boredom down.	Immediate scoring aids tracking; students understand with less lecture.	Unstable internet; inappropriate nicknames; time limits during the lesson.	Teacher surveys; no student scales.
Kurniawan et al. (2024)	“Fun, creative, interesting”; enthusiasm up; some distraction from peers/apps.	Easier to understand with audiovisuals + teacher elaboration; feedback helps.	Device gaps; internet issues; classroom management in large classes.	Student quotes/themes; no scale means.
Pham (2023)	Not directly reported.	Improved grammar outcomes; reattempts + immediate feedback support review.	Easy access (multi-device); teacher can customise feedback; no fairness issues reported.	Achievement + platform description; no student affect data.
Pham et al. (2025)	Enjoyment/motivation high; anxiety mostly mild/declining (Kahoot M = 3.30; Quizizz M = 3.45); excitement about competition.	Quizizz reattempts aid retention; on-device items reduce split attention vs. Kahoot.	Prefer Quizizz for solo/self-study; Kahoot for in-class teams; strict timers stressful; occasional key errors.	Interviews + Likert anxiety means.
Paramita (2023)	Described as fun, engaging; positive atmosphere.	Visuals/VR/simulations improve grasp of abstract ideas; real-time checks help.	Technical glitches disrupt flow; desire for more customization.	Student themes; no quotes/means.
Almufareh (2021)	Duolingo seen as fun; motivation; competitive elements can engage.	Audiovisual repetition + self-pacing help reading/writing/vocab.	App not in syllabus → extra workload; features (XP) seen as less useful.	Surveys/interviews (students and profs).
Chan and Lo (2024)	Generally positive attitudes; competitive cues vary by personality (e.g., introverts vs. extroverts).	Immediate feedback, clear rules, social interaction perceived to help; gains not always sustained.	Usability/infra gaps; some pacing too fast; mixed views on leaderboards.	Narrative review/synthesis.
Ho (2020)	High enjoyment (e.g., 92% interest; M ≈ 4.4); reduced reticence to speak.	Better understanding/application of narrative concepts; critical thinking ↑.	Tool easy to use; small-group teamwork preferred; timed scoring accepted.	Mixed-methods; Likert + interviews.
Hong et al. (2022)	Curiosity (especially deprivation-type) → more positive gamification attitudes; anxiety lowers curiosity.	Learning performance improved in “pose–gamify–play” grammar tasks.	User-friendly creation/play; fixed short sessions; rankings recorded (no fairness feedback).	Questionnaires + performance data.
Bolat and Taş (2023)	Motivation cited as mechanism (meta-analytic context).	Feedback/formative features linked to achievement effects (tool-level).	Notes tool affordances (e.g., avatars/memes in Quizizz); no user fairness data.	Meta-analysis; no primary perceptions.

). In an Indonesian EFL vocabulary context, students called Kahoot “fun,” “exciting,” and “not boring”. They reported feeling “happy and excited,” and rated engagement (M = 3.95, SD = 0.96) and motivation (M = 4.09, SD = 0.89) positively (Rojabi et al., 2022). A narrative writing game in a flipped class likewise drew strong enjoyment ratings (e.g., 92% found the topic interesting; M ≈ 4.4) and students described reduced reticence to speak (Ho, 2020). When grammar practice was used with Kahoot and Quizizz, most interviewees reported little or fading anxiety, aligning with neutral anxiety means (Kahoot M = 3.30; Quizizz M = 3.45) (Pham et al., 2025). There were frequent comments about comfort and excitement. Reviews that zoom out beyond a single tool reinforce these affective takeaways. Gamified formats tend to boost reported attention and enthusiasm, though reactions to competitive cues can vary (Chan & Lo, 2024).

Perceived learning benefits centre on clarity, reviewability, and the sense of “learning while playing.” Learners emphasised that immediate item-by-item feedback helped them understand vocabulary and “push[ed]” them to get topics right (Rojabi et al., 2022). Students in a Quizizz-based grammar course highlighted the ease of reattempting missed items and tracking progress on their own screens (Pham et al., 2025). Another Quizizz study described improved achievement patterns alongside platform features that make practice “appealing” and encourage extra time on tasks (Pham, 2023). Beyond quiz apps, students using Nearpod perceived abstract ideas as more graspable due to visuals and real-time checks (Paramita, 2023). Duolingo users (and their instructors) credited audiovisual repetition and self-pacing with progress in reading, writing, and vocabulary (Almufareh, 2021). A grammar “question posing + gamify + play” design reported better performance where positive attitudes towards gamification co-occurred with curiosity constructs (Hong et al., 2022). This suggests that the students felt the approach helped them in learning.

Practicalities matter. Learners and teachers frequently mention timers, connectivity, and device constraints. In Rojabi et al. (2022), students flagged short time limits, unstable internet, and room-size caps as pain points. In a separate classroom, students noted device shortages, distractions from other apps, and the need for better classroom management, alongside praise for Kahoot’s audiovisual pull (Kurniawan et al., 2024). In another study, technical glitches surfaced in Nearpod sessions (Paramita, 2023). Elsewhere, teachers using Kahoot pointed to unstable connections, inappropriate nicknames, and time limits during the lesson (Phan & Tran, 2024). Perceived fairness and usability comparisons also appear. For example, students preferred Quizizz’s on-device question view (lower split attention) and reattempt features, while Kahoot’s projector-based flow sometimes felt distractive, and ambiguous keys raised fairness concerns (Pham et al., 2025). Even outside class, integrating apps without syllabus alignment can create extra workload that learners notice (Almufareh, 2021).

Preferences are textured rather than uniform. Many respondents enjoy competition, points, and leaderboards; others prefer collaboration or milder stakes. Learners in the study by Pham et al. (2025) tended to pick Quizizz for solo/self-study and Kahoot for in-class teaming. Ho (2020) reported that students valued small-group collaboration with light competition. Teacher narratives echo that leaderboards and instant scoring “spark” engagement while cautioning about connectivity and access (Phan & Tran, 2024). Chan and Lo (2024) synthesise personality-linked differences (e.g., some introverts reacting neutrally to rankings while others prefer badges) that help explain why the same mechanic feels thrilling to some and tense to others.

Students also describe how pressure shifts over time. Several interviewees in a study by Pham et al. (2025) felt initial “trembling” to win but said worry faded after a few rounds. Rojabi et al. (2022) still noted ongoing time-pressure complaints. Kurniawan et al. (2024) point to distractions (notifications, peers) that can blunt the perceived benefits unless instructors manage flow and devices. Hong et al. (2022) add a psychological lens, noting that higher English learning anxiety aligns with lower curiosity and weaker attitudes towards gamification. Perceptions improve when designs temper anxiety triggers and satisfy curiosity.

Finally, one synthesis sits slightly outside pure perception data yet triangulates students’ voices. A meta-analysis of gamified assessment tools attributes gains partly to motivational mechanisms and feedback but, by design, offers little qualitative detail on how students felt (Bolat & Taş, 2023). Read together with the primary studies, the picture is consistent. Learners often report more enjoyment, motivation, and perceived clarity when feedback is immediate and reattempts are supported. Learners want clear pacing, reliable access, fair answer keys, and, depending on their preference, either energising competition or collaborative buffers (Almufareh, 2021; Bolat & Taş, 2023; Ho, 2020; Paramita, 2023; Phan & Tran, 2024).

The reviewed studies consistently report that students viewed gamified activities as enjoyable, motivating, and useful. Still, the robustness of these findings is constrained by methodological limitations. Some studies relied on qualitative quotes or thematic analyses without accompanying quantitative measures while others reported Likert-scale means without providing supporting qualitative insights. Several studies omitted student affect data entirely or relied solely on teacher reports to infer learner experience. Beyond these methodological issues, sample sizes are frequently small, and cross-sectional designs dominate the reviewed studies. As a result, the conclusions about learners’ perceptions remain tentative and should be interpreted with caution.

3.4. RQ4: How Teachers Orchestrate Gamified EFL/ESL Work (Planning, Pacing, Feedback, Grouping) and Handle Constraints, Integrity, Equity, and Privacy

Lastly, we reviewed how the teacher implemented gamified learning. Studies that effectively describe lesson flow embed game moments within a broader routine, rather than allowing the tool to drive the class. For example, short pre-lesson quizzes were used to activate prior knowledge, content teaching, and a closing game for retrieval or diagnosis (Chiang, 2020; Lashari et al., 2025). Weekly schedules that reserve a fixed window (e.g., ~15–30 min) for game-based practice help teachers keep tempo predictable while avoiding overuse (Alsswey & Malak, 2024; Waluyo & Balazon, 2024). In low-tech designs, pacing is controlled by rounds and turn-based mechanics (four short rounds across ~50 min). This makes repetition purposeful without screens (Cancino Avila & Castillo Fonseca, 2021). Reviews aimed at EFL/ESL also stress aligning elements (points, progress bars, badges, leaderboards) with clear goals so students always see “what’s next” and why, while adjusting time limits to ensure speed never overwhelms content (Chan & Lo, 2024).

Feedback is the second pillar. Across classroom and lecture settings, teachers lean on instant item-level results and post-game item stats to reteach or adjust difficulty on the spot (Alsswey & Malak, 2024; Chan & Lo, 2024; Chiang, 2020; Waluyo & Balazon, 2024). Where students compare platforms, visibility of the question/answer on the learner’s own device and the ability to review wrong answers support clearer self-correction between rounds (Pham et al., 2025). Paper card formats provide feedback intrinsically (peers verify L1/L2 meanings as points are awarded), which keeps momentum high without dashboards (Cancino Avila & Castillo Fonseca, 2021).

Grouping choices shape tone. Evidence and reviews converge on mixing cooperation and competition: small teams with shared goals and light ranking tend to motivate without shutting down quieter learners, whereas pure competition can be brittle (Chan & Lo, 2024; Sailer & Homner, 2020). Concrete examples include triads for vocabulary card play (Cancino Avila & Castillo Fonseca, 2021), whole-class quizzes where students respond individually but still confer between rounds (Lashari et al., 2025), and a pragmatic split in platform use—Kahoot! for in-class team play, and Quizizz for solo/asynchronous review (Pham et al., 2025).

Implementation constraints are practical more than philosophical. Teachers cite time to design good items, learn the tool, and debrief as the main costs (Alsswey & Malak, 2024; Chan & Lo, 2024). This highlights the importance of infrastructure. Connectivity hiccups, single-projector rooms that force split attention, device/charging gaps, and readability issues (such as font size and seating) all affect uptake (Chiang, 2020; Pham et al., 2025). Even in well-equipped “smart classrooms,” minor tech snags and the need for variety surface over a 10-week run (Waluyo & Balazon, 2024) affect uptake. Curriculum pressure (textbook- and exam-centric routines) can also limit space for game tasks; here, low-tech games are an accessible bridge (Alsswey & Malak, 2024). At the systems level, reviews indicate that teachers need interfaces that present useful data without additional workload and training, linking mechanics to pedagogy, not just tool clicks (Gini et al., 2025).

Assessment integrity and quality control are recurring concerns. In-room fairness issues include students answering when not present and peers blurting answers; both require simple norms and monitoring (Chiang, 2020). On public quiz banks, occasional item errors can confuse learners and weaken trust. Teachers should vet items or build their own (Pham et al., 2025). Most classroom uses remain formative, with rapid checks that inform reteaching rather than grades, which lowers stakes and anxiety (Alsswey & Malak, 2024). Meta-analytic work underscores the need for rigour in instruments and alignment between what games ask and what courses assess (Sailer & Homner, 2020).

Equity and accessibility hinge on context. Device and bandwidth access, class size, and learners’ familiarity with digital tools shape who benefits (Chan & Lo, 2024; Waluyo & Balazon, 2024). Cultural and economic factors also modulate acceptance and practicality, implying the need for localised content and institutional support (Alsswey & Malak, 2024). Low-tech designs (image-rich cards, small groups) can widen participation when devices are scarce (Cancino Avila & Castillo Fonseca, 2021). Platform differences matter too. Letting learners see questions on their own screens can reduce split attention load and benefit students in the back rows (Pham et al., 2025).

Privacy is rarely discussed in classroom reports, but broader reviews highlight it as an ethical issue whenever platforms collect performance data. Instructors and programmes should implement basic protections (such as limited data retention, informed use, and opt-outs where possible) and ensure transparency about what is being tracked (Chan & Lo, 2024; Gini et al., 2025). The findings of these studies are summarised in

Table 4. Teacher Orchestration of Gamified EFL/ESL: Practices, Constraints, and Equity.

Orchestration Theme	Concrete Practices (What to Do)	Typical Constraints	Integrity and Equity Notes	Privacy/Data Notes	Key Sources
Plan the cadence	Prime → teach → quiz/reteach within the same lesson; reserve a fixed game window (≈15–30 min) to avoid overuse	Prep time for good items; fitting games into tight syllabi	Keep games formative; align with what you assess	Be transparent about what platforms log	(Chan & Lo, 2024; Lashari et al., 2025; Waluyo & Balazon, 2024)
Pace the session	Use short rounds/turns; tune timers (not just default); vary mechanics across weeks	Rapid gameplay can outpace some learners	Vet difficulty; avoid speed-only scoring	—	(Cancino Avila & Castillo Fonseca, 2021; Chan & Lo, 2024; Chiang, 2020)
Feedback loops	Exploit instant item stats to reteach immediately; let students review wrong answers on their own devices between rounds	Time to debrief within class block	Publicly posted leaderboards can demotivate some	Limit unnecessary exposure of names/scores	(Chan & Lo, 2024; Pham et al., 2025; Waluyo & Balazon, 2024)
Grouping and tone	Mix cooperation + light competition (teams/triads + gentle ranking) to broaden participation	Managing teams in large rooms	Rotate roles; set norms to reduce shout-outs	—	(Cancino Avila & Castillo Fonseca, 2021; Lashari et al., 2025; Sailer & Homner, 2020)
Tool–room fit	Prefer own-device view to cut split attention; keep a low-tech backup (cards/images)	Single-projector rooms; seating/readability	Ensure everyone can see/participate	—	(Cancino Avila & Castillo Fonseca, 2021; Chiang, 2020; Pham et al., 2025)
Low-tech options	Image-rich card games in small groups with scoring/turn rules for immediate, intrinsic feedback	Nonelectronic prep time; printing	Accessible in low-resource contexts	Minimal data footprint	(Cancino Avila & Castillo Fonseca, 2021)
Time and workload	Block-design lessons (e.g., lecture 30′ + game 15′); reuse/iterate item banks; plan micro-reteaches	Authoring, vetting items; teacher training needs	Keep stakes low to reduce anxiety	—	(Alsswey & Malak, 2024; Chiang, 2020; Pham, 2023)
Tech and class size	Check Wi-Fi; have spare devices/charging; adjust font/music; rehearse join steps	Connectivity, device gaps, app hiccups; big classes	Provide alternatives for students without devices	—	(Alsswey & Malak, 2024; Chiang, 2020; Waluyo & Balazon, 2024)
Integrity and quality	Monitor in-room participation; discourage calling out answers; audit public quiz items for errors	Errors in shared item banks; off-site answering	Favour formative use; align items to outcomes	—	(Chiang, 2020; Pham et al., 2025; Sailer & Homner, 2020)
Equity and access	Provide own-device modes, low-tech backups, and clear visuals; localise content	Cultural/economic access differences	Scaffold for novice tech users; avoid one-size-fits-all	—	(Alsswey & Malak, 2024; Cancino Avila & Castillo Fonseca, 2021; Chan & Lo, 2024)
Dashboards and teacher UX	Use platform analytics that surface actionable patterns without extra load; seek PD on linking mechanics to pedagogy	Data overload; limited PD time	Use data to support, not label students	Handle student data minimally/securely	(Chan & Lo, 2024; Gini et al., 2025)
Evidence gaps (for future work)	More reports on teacher moves (think time, role rotation), long-term routines, and policy (privacy)	—	—	Prioritise privacy-by-design in studies	(Gini et al., 2025; R. Zhang et al., 2023)

below.

Overall, the evidence suggests that teachers value gamification for structuring lessons, providing rapid feedback, and managing group dynamics. However, the robustness of these findings is limited by limitations of individual studies. For example, most studies rely on self-reported surveys or interviews with small or convenience samples. Design challenges were also noted including limited learner participation, potential of publicly posted results to demotivate learners, and non-comparable settings. Also, the reporting of context, workload, and technological constraints is inconsistent while longitudinal data are rare. This means that while teachers’ accounts highlight practical benefits and challenges, the evidence base provides only a partial and short-term view of how gamification shapes instructional practice in various settings.

4. Discussion of the Results

The four research questions point to a cautiously optimistic but conditional picture. For learning performance, gamification helps when the mix of mechanics, the social format, and the pacing is aligned with the linguistic target and is taught purposefully (Gini et al., 2025). Gains are most visible for vocabulary and reading, while durability varies across settings. Some designs keep an advantage at delayed testing while others converge with controls. Still, a few well-designed non-digital group tasks outperform fast individual competitive apps. Two levers keep returning in the evidence, group structure, and time. Team-based competitive collaborative designs tend to outperform pure competition for behaviours that sit close to performance, and routines matter (Dindar et al., 2021). This is likely due to the fact that repeating the same quick quiz often leads to wear-out or speeded guessing. A balanced reading of RQ1 is that gamification can lift outcomes when mechanics, grouping, and tempo serve the skill at hand, and that any claim to durability needs a delayed post-test.

Classroom dynamics follow the same logic. Gamified moments usually feel livelier and more structured. Item-level feedback shortens response cycles, turn-taking becomes predictable, and whole-class energy rises. Most evidence here is indirect, usually surveys and platform traces rather than fine-grained observation of talk or attention. Where logs are available, leaderboards often raise completion early and then taper. Anonymity and cooperative twists broaden voice for quieter students, and common frictions decide who actually participates. Strict timers, projector-only visibility, weak connectivity, and device gaps appear often. Quick feedback and predictable turns organise participation, but designs that temper speed and blend cooperation with competitive interest tend to be more inclusive and more sustainable across weeks.

Students’ perceptions are the most stable strand. Learners commonly describe gamified activities as enjoyable and motivating, and anxiety is usually mild or it fades as routines settle (Kurniawan et al., 2024). Perceived learning gains cluster around clarity, reviewability, and the feeling of learning while playing. These gains are fragile when logistics fail. Tight timers can feel unfair, unstable internet breaks flow, projector-based formats split attention, and occasional answer key errors erode trust. Preferences vary. Many students like points and leaderboards, while others prefer cooperative play or lighter stakes. A pragmatic split often emerges—projector-centric tools in the class for team play, and own-device tools for solo or asynchronous review. What students value most is a clear pace and fair, specific feedback.

Teacher perspectives complete the picture. Effective orchestration shows up in cadence and in debrief. A short check to activate prior knowledge, focused instruction, and a closing game for retrieval or diagnosis, followed by immediate reteaching that uses item statistics, is a pattern that works. Low-tech checks help when devices fail. Grouping choices set the tone. Small teams or triads with shared goals and light ranking motivate without shutting down quieter learners, while public high stakes leaderboards are brittle. Constraints are practical, authoring and vetting items, learning a tool, saving time to debrief, coping with connectivity and single-projector rooms, and managing devices and large classes. These constraints interact with integrity and equity. Teachers who vet public quiz banks, keep most uses formative, ensure every learner can see and respond, and localise content, avoid the biggest pitfalls. Privacy is rarely discussed in classroom reports. At a minimum, instructors can inform students about what is logged, keep names and scores private where possible, and avoid unnecessary retention. Reading across RQ1 to RQ4, the centre of gravity is clear. The value of gamification sits less in the novelty of points and more in the choreography that teachers control, dose, variety, grouping, and debrief, which turn short excitement into durable learning.

The findings of this review can be interpreted through the broader theoretical perspectives of the SDT and the cognitive load theory. From a cognitive load viewpoint, designs that offer clear pacing, stable routines, and well-aligned mechanics tend to support more focused processing. In contrast, fast-cycling quizzes or cluttered interfaces can overwhelm learners and encourage surface-level responses. The pacing, grouping, clarity, and feedback enable learners to work with confidence and sustain their effort over time as predicted by the self-determination theory. Gamification tools are likely to improve learner autonomy, competence, and social interactions and at the same time lower cognitive load.

Lastly, this study raises fundamental ethical and socio-cultural issues. First, issues of digital equity become visible in many classroom accounts. Access to devices, stable connectivity, and readable displays could shape participation patterns and influence who can engage fully with a gamified task and who is left navigating constraints. Data privacy adds another layer since classroom tools increasingly collect data on student behaviour. In this case, it is important to inform learners what is collected while at the same time minimize unnecessary storage to preserve trust and transparency. So, the design of any intervention must take cognizance of these issues. Nevertheless, the study findings have important implications. One distinctive contribution of this review is the proposal of minimum reporting standards for future gamification research. By encouraging authors to document design choices, social structures, assessment windows, and contextual conditions with greater precision, these standards aim to make findings more comparable and more applicable across diverse teaching environments. In other words, the evidence suggests that the benefits of gamification do not stem from points or badges alone, but from the thoughtful orchestration that surrounds them.

5. Limitations of the Study

One of the limitations of this review is the scope of the search strategy. While the focus was on gamified quizzing in EFL/ESL classrooms, the database queries did not restrict inclusion to specific platforms such as Kahoot! or Quizizz. This means that studies using other tools like Socrative, Mentimeter, Wordwall, and custom-built systems could have been included when they met the eligibility criteria. Nevertheless, it is possible that some relevant studies were missed if the platform name was not mentioned in the title, abstract, or keywords. In addition, the individual studies had several risks that might limit confidence in the findings. Short implementations invite novelty effects and Hawthorne effects. Early spikes in engagement and performance can reflect excitement rather than learning. Strict timers introduce speededness that changes what is measured, especially for recognition tasks, and errors in public item banks threaten score accuracy. Many studies use quasi-experimental designs with intact classes, small samples, and immediate post-tests. Baseline differences, teacher effects, and the absence of delayed measures limit causal claims about retention. Construct validity is also at risk. Studies often label a lesson as gamified without specifying timer lengths, leaderboard visibility, audio, or social format. Many rely on Likert scales for engagement and seldom triangulate with behavioural observation. Projector-only formats can impose split attention that interacts with proficiency, yet this load is rarely modelled. Statistical power is often low, multiple week-by-week comparisons appear without correction, and a short follow-up weakens claims about durability. External validity is limited. Findings cluster in specific platforms and in better-resourced settings. Transfer to low-resource or very large EFL classes is uncertain, and effects tied to one ecosystem may not travel when visibility, pacing, or grouping change. Review-level threats also apply. Publication bias and positivity bias, English language search limits, and reliance on narrative synthesis, given heterogeneity, all push estimates upward. These risks motivate clear minimum reporting standards for low-input contexts. Report the intervention dose and the element mix, including timer lengths and leaderboard visibility. Report the social format and the teacher’s moves, including when the debrief happened and how long it lasted. Report assessment timing with any delayed tests, instrument reliability, any blinding, the technology and inclusion context, devices, bandwidth, accommodations, and low-tech backups, and report attrition and basic data handling. Without this detail, effects are difficult to interpret, to replicate, and to reuse responsibly.

6. Recommendations for Practice and Future Research

Based on the reviewed evidence, several practical recommendations are proposed for teachers and curriculum designers. To begin with, the evidence suggests that gamified activities work best when pacing is moderate, competition is balanced with cooperative structures, and feedback is immediate and specific. As a result, teachers should vary formats to prevent wear-out. Also, there is a need for use of anonymity or small-team designs to broaden participation. Furthermore, trainers should integrate low-tech fallbacks for classes with device or connectivity constraints. There is also a need for transparent communication about data logging to help maintain integrity and trust.

Future research should prioritise delayed post-tests, richer classroom observation, and clearer reporting of element configurations, assessment windows, and exposure length. Studies comparing cooperative, competitive, and hybrid structures across proficiency levels are also needed to deepen understanding of social design effects. We also suggest that future work integrate ethical considerations such as digital equity and privacy into study designs to ensure that gamified learning benefits all learners.

7. Conclusions

This review finds that gamification can support EFL and ESL learning when mechanics, grouping, and pacing are aligned with clear instructional goals. The most dependable gains appear in vocabulary and reading, while effects on motivation and classroom energy are common but can fade if routines are overused. Classrooms benefit from quick feedback and predictable turns, and students report enjoyment, usefulness, and low to moderate anxiety when designs balance cooperative and competitive elements. Teachers make a difference through cadence, targeted debriefs, and pragmatic tool choices that fit both the room and the learners. The overall message is encouraging, yet claims about durability and transfer must remain modest without stronger designs and delayed testing.

Future work should move beyond tool novelty and toward transparent, replicable practice. We encourage minimum reporting standards that state the dose, the exact element mix, the social format, and the timing of assessment, along with reliability, inclusion context, and any low-tech fallback. Studies that include delayed outcomes, directly observe behaviour, and examine equity and privacy in routine classrooms will help distinguish short spikes from durable learning. With careful design and honest reporting, gamification can shift from punctual excitement to a reliable part of language teaching.