Language Teacher Candidates’ Voices of Gamified Project-Based Lessons: Unveiling Views and Tensions

Abstract

This mixed-methods study explores the views and experiences of 55 English-language teacher candidates in Chile who designed gamified project-based lessons aimed at fostering inclusive learning and social justice in culturally diverse classrooms. Data were collected through lesson plans, semi-structured interviews, and a Likert-scale survey, and were analysed using inductive content analysis and descriptive statistics. The findings reveal that participants valued gamification for enhancing student engagement, collaboration, and critical thinking, and they perceived gains in their ability to integrate social justice themes into language teaching. However, discrepancies emerged when participants had to plan lessons that had a social justice orientation because they perceived they did not have enough competence to approach equity-oriented themes. This study adopts a justice lens that foregrounds power, agency, and digital equity in teacher candidates’ lesson-planning skills to examine how they can redistribute voice, recognise situated knowledges, and expand their capacity to act within and against structural constraints. The study underscores the need for teacher education programmes to move beyond technical and motivational uses of gamification and digital tools. From their lesson plans, teacher candidates were not simply adopting digital tools at a technical level but seem to be designing an integrated pedagogical ecosystem that aligned gamification and project-based learning. However, it is inconclusive whether they are able to design gamified PBL environments that do not reproduce existing social and educational inequalities and ensure that access and participation are carefully scaffolded.

1. Introduction

Culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2018) emphasises identifying and disrupting structural inequities while using students’ cultural knowledge and experiences to empower them intellectually, socially, and politically. This philosophy examines how culture, power, and inequities shape classrooms and create space for social change and student agency. Language teacher education programmes that serve culturally diverse school contexts must provide their trainees with the skills to design inclusive lessons with culturally relevant materials, to act as cultural mediators, and to be open to reflecting on biases and advocating for equity (Silva, 2022).

Rigney’s (2019) Culturally Responsive Digital Schooling (CRDS) model, for example, emphasises designing curricula that affirm indigenous languages, epistemologies, and pedagogies while deploying digital tools. The model’s focus on decolonisation and cultural responsiveness guides teacher educators in crafting coursework and practicum experiences that challenge traditional approaches. By preparing teacher candidates to co-design digital learning with community voices and embed indigenous knowledge systems, teacher education addresses the digital divide through culturally sustaining pedagogy rather than mere device provision.

The digital divide represents a key structural inequity, as technology access is shaped by socioeconomic, linguistic, and cultural factors. Addressing this divide requires training pre-service teachers to view students’ digital practices as cultural assets, build on their funds of knowledge, incorporate multimodal tasks with flexibility, design inclusive digital learning, and develop digital literacy through culturally relevant topics. Teacher candidates must develop digital equity mindsets and critical digital pedagogy (Weisberg & Dawson, 2024), and structured lesson-planning experiences examining inequities heighten awareness and shape integration strategies.

Teacher education programmes embedding culturally responsive pedagogy within digital instruction frameworks can narrow the digital divide. Ogodo’s (2024) Culturally Responsive Pedagogical Knowledge (CRPK) framework shows how teacher preparation must intertwine content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and cultural competence focused on technology use in diverse classrooms. CRPK promotes equitable digital access by cultivating awareness of students’ backgrounds, integrating local knowledge into digital lessons, and addressing differential technology access at the community and family levels.

1.1. Integrating Social Justice, Critical Pedagogy, and Cultural Responsiveness in Teacher Education

The present study is informed by an integrated framework that brings together social justice-oriented teacher education, critical pedagogy, and culturally responsive pedagogy. Social justice-oriented teacher education provides the overarching ethical and political commitment, positioning teaching as a practice aimed at addressing educational inequities and challenging structural injustices (Cochran-Smith, 2004, 2010). Drawing on Cochran-Smith’s (2004) work on teacher education for social justice, this framework positions teachers not just as implementers of curriculum but ethical and political actors who question how schooling and society reproduce inequities related to language, culture, and social class.

Critical pedagogy operationalises this social justice orientation by foregrounding power, knowledge, and agency as central pedagogical and analytic concerns. Informed by Freire’s (1970/2018) notion of education as dialogic, problem-posing, and emancipatory, teacher education programmes should privilege critical reflection and praxis over transmission-oriented instruction. When planning and teaching, teacher candidates should be encouraged to interrogate dominant discourses shaping English-language teaching, learning, and assessment within neoliberal and accountability-driven contexts, such as the one in Chile. This stance also informs this current study, which centres participants’ voices and lived experiences as legitimate knowledge rather than treating them as objects of measurement (Freire, 1970/2018).

Culturally responsive pedagogy provides the pedagogical bridge between social justice and classroom enactment. Building on Ladson-Billings’ conception of culturally relevant pedagogy, which links academic success, cultural competence, and sociopolitical consciousness, this study connects pedagogical decision-making when lesson planning with candidates’ linguistic repertoires, cultural histories, and community contexts, positioning culture as integral to cognition and learning rather than as an add-on (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014).

At the level of lesson planning and decision-making, the framework is further informed by Gay’s (2010, 2018) emphasis on teaching that is responsive to learners’ cultural knowledge, experiences, and frames of reference. This perspective shapes gamified project-based tasks that require candidates to design and justify pedagogical choices in relation to learners’ realities and unequal access to resources (Gay, 2010, 2018). Together, these perspectives ensure that teaching and learning are examined not only in terms of effectiveness but also in relation to whose knowledge is valued, who has a voice and agency, and how teacher education in Chile can contribute to more inclusive and socially just educational frameworks (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 2014; Gay, 2010, 2018).

1.2. Gamification and Project-Based Learning (PBL) as Tools Within Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

Gamification and PBL could be powerful tools within culturally responsive pedagogy if they are thoughtfully adapted to learners’ cultural contexts, not just to make learning fun, but also to make it meaningful and inclusive.

Gamification, on the one hand, leverages game-design elements in learning contexts to boost student engagement, motivation, and performance (Cheng et al., 2025); it is most effective when these elements are deeply aligned with the pedagogical context and instructional design (Briones Suárez et al., 2024). Gamification is recognised as a powerful strategy to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion by valuing individual differences and ensuring marginalised groups have access to fair learning opportunities (Coelho & Abreu, 2025). However, while gamification has clear benefits, relying on a strictly behaviourist approach, where the focus is on external rewards and punishments, poses several risks in diverse classrooms (Briones Suárez et al., 2024; Coelho & Abreu, 2025). For example, learners may focus only on earning rather than developing a deeper understanding or critical thinking. In addition, punitive elements can reproduce hierarchical or authoritarian structures, which may alienate students from marginalised backgrounds.

Critical pedagogy frames gamified learning as a site to interrogate power and representation (Breunig, 2016). Culturally responsive gamified learning requires game mechanics, narratives, and rewards to draw on learners’ cultural referents and lived experiences, shifting projects toward transformative relevance (Coelho & Abreu, 2025).

Project-Based Learning (PBL), on the other hand, provides learners with autonomy by allowing them to select their own focus, promotes high-level thinking, addresses authentic problems, and supports collaborative knowledge production (Anderson, 2021). Thus, PBL positions learners as active investigators of authentic problems, providing a vehicle for culturally responsive inquiry (Huang et al., 2023). PBL is a natural fit for culturally responsive pedagogy because it emphasises student voice, authentic contexts, and collaborative problem-solving. If designed with cultural awareness, PBL can affirm identities and make learning deeply relevant. In short, PBL allows culturally responsive pedagogy to move beyond ‘adding culture’ into lessons; it makes culture the foundation of inquiry and problem-solving.

While the literature reports the contribution of culturally responsive teaching for diverse contexts (e.g., Silva, 2022) and PBL contributions to student agency, little is known about using gamified PBL (e.g., Coelho & Abreu, 2025) when lesson planning for students in culturally diverse contexts who are more familiar with traditional teaching approaches.

Cultural diversity in Chilean classrooms has increased, driven by a sustained international migration (e.g., from Venezuela, Peru, Haiti, Colombia, and Bolivia) (Román Soto, 2021; Carrasco & Paz-Maldonado, 2022) together with the longstanding presence of indigenous peoples, especially Mapuche communities in the south (Klenner-Loebel et al., 2026; Cancino & Nuñez, 2023). This diversity is visible in students’ transitional experiences, sometimes leading to segregation and stigmatisation (Driscoll & Mondaca-Rojas, 2024; Román Soto, 2021). Linguistic diversity in this context includes home languages different from the language of instruction (e.g., Haitian Creole, Mapudungun) (Ministerio de Educación, 2025) and varied Chilean and Latin American Spanish. In this context, EFL teachers become intercultural mediators who could help students bridge cultural differences and support equitable participation (Klenner-Loebel et al., 2026).

This article reports on a study that aims to respond to the following research question: What views and tensions do language teacher candidates hold when planning gamified project-based lessons for learners in culturally diverse contexts? For this, three sub-research questions are addressed:

• What learning goals, social issues, teaching strategies and activities do participants perceive as key in their lesson plans?
• In which way could gamification support or challenge learning?
• What gains do participants perceive from planning gamified PBL lessons?

2. Materials and Methods

This mixed-methods study, with a strong qualitative focus, addresses the views and experiences of 55 teacher candidates who planned gamified, project-based lessons for culturally diverse school students.

Participants who granted permission and consent to be interviewed were 55 fourth-year teacher candidates enrolled in the course “EFL Didactics and Practicum” within a five-year Chilean teacher education programme. They voluntarily self-identified as 21 females, 19 males, and 15 non-binary individuals. The option ‘I prefer not to say’ for gender was also included, but no participant used it. The programme prepares English teachers for state, semi-private, and private schools through progressive internships with students aged 10–17. These schools vary in the funding they receive from the state, but all must follow the national language curriculum. The curriculum aligns with Chilean government standards, emphasising advanced English proficiency and teaching competencies for planning, executing, and assessing lessons.

2.1. Data Collection Tools

Three data collection tools were implemented in this study:

• Lesson plan artefacts: Participants designed individual project-based lesson plans for the classes they were working with in their school internships. These lesson plans had three broad sections for the project: planning, development, and closing and reflection. Each section had different stages that participants had to complete to design their lesson plans.
• Semi-structured interviews: They compromised 13 open-ended questions organised into 3 dimensions: (1) pedagogical and gamification strategies, (2) inclusion, collaboration, and interaction, and (3) professional development and social justice.
• A 7-point Likert scale. It consisted of 16 items, with seven response options: 1. Strongly Disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Somewhat Disagree, 4. I do not have a well-formed opinion, 5. Somewhat Agree, 6. Agree, and 7. Strongly Agree. The 16 items were distributed across 4 different dimensions: (1) pedagogical and gamification strategies, (2) inclusion, collaboration, and interaction, (3) professional development and social justice, and (4) challenges and opportunities. The reason for using a scale in this study is that even though qualitative research focuses on meaning, depth, and context, using a scale can significantly strengthen the rigour and coherence of a qualitative design—especially in a mixed-methods, exploratory study. Sun and Benson (2023), for example, show that mixed-methods designs combining scales with interviews produce deeper insights because reality is complex and multifaceted, and cannot be captured by a single qualitative method alone. Even though this is a mixed-methods study, this Likert scale was only used for exploratory purposes to complement the more in-depth qualitative analysis of the interview and lesson plans.

All data collection tools underwent expert review for content validity, assessing relevance, clarity, and representativeness of items and field testing with actual teacher candidates to evaluate clarity, usability, and appropriateness in real settings (Bhalla et al., 2023). Additionally, for each tool, there was a literature-informed protocol development process highlighting the balance between consistency and adaptability (Bryan & Graham, 2024). Studies on culturally responsive pedagogy (e.g., Gay, 2018), Culturally Responsive Digital Schooling (e.g., Rigney, 2019), gamification (e.g., Briones Suárez et al., 2024) and PBL (e.g., Huang et al., 2023) were reviewed to identify key constructs, dimensions, and item formats aligned with the research questions of the study. This process ensured that each instrument reflected established theoretical perspectives and methodological practices within the field.

To ensure methodological rigour, best practices for interview and scale methods were followed, including the ethical protocol, positionality awareness, and data transparency (Castillo-Montoya, 2016). Two external teacher educators collected the data in English to avoid potential power dynamics, and then three other teacher educators from the teacher preparation programme worked on data analysis and interpretation ensuring that they were not teaching the participants at the moment of analysing the data. In total, 55 lesson plans, 55 interviews, and 29 Likert scales were collected and analysed. Each interview was about 40 min plus 15 min for responding to the scale. To reduce potential power dynamics between researchers and participants, the following strategies were employed in this study:

-

Voluntary and informed consent with ongoing negotiation emphasising that participants could skip questions, pause interviews, or withdraw at any point without penalty.

-

Intermediaries for research recruitment. Administrative staff was a neutral third party for sending invitations.

-

Dialogic and conversational methods for framing the semi-structured interviews as conversations and not as interrogations, positioning participants as meaning makers.

-

Allowing participants to choose the setting for interviews (online or physical space).

-

Non-evaluative language to avoid phrases such as ‘correct answer’ or ‘best practice’ during interviews or lesson plan design.

-

Including dissenting voices actively analysing and reporting data that might contradict dominant narratives in the dataset.

The researchers acknowledge their insider roles within the teacher education context under study. This insider status afforded contextual knowledge and rapport with participants, while also presenting the potential for power asymmetries and taken-for-granted assumptions. To manage these risks and enhance ethical transparency and methodological rigour, the study emphasised voluntary participation and the right to withdraw at all stages, and adopted a non-evaluative, dialogic stance during data collection. Reflective practices, including ongoing discussion among the research team, were employed to make assumptions visible.

Although this study is qualitatively driven, the Likert-type items were used as prompts and exploratory indicators to complement and triangulate inductive content analysis categories, rather than to test a measurement instrument. In qualitatively led or mixed-methods designs, it is methodologically acceptable to use scale data descriptively when the primary aim is category understanding (Taber, 2018). Since the study did not aim to validate a scale or make claims about latent constructs, an internal consistency analysis was not planned, and the sample size was not powered for stable factor solutions (Tong et al., 2007). However, expert input was sought to ensure content relevance and clarity of prompts. A panel of six expert teacher educators reviewed the scale twice and gave feedback on the wording and coherence of the statements. Their feedback was incorporated into the scale, which was later piloted with a sample of five teacher candidates who gave new feedback on the clarity of the items. To enhance clarity, the Likert-scale items have been added in the Appendix A. Additionally, as the scale was only exploratory and meant to complement qualitative content analysis, the 16 scale items were planned and organised into the same dimensions as the semi-structured interview. The scale items’ statistical behaviour is depicted in

Table 1. Mean, median, and standard deviation per dimension.

Dimension	N	Max	Min	Median	Mean	SD
Dimension 1: Pedagogical and Gamification Strategies	29	6.75	4.00	6.25	6.11	0.75
Dimension 2: Inclusion, Collaboration, and Interaction	29	7.00	4.50	6.25	6.01	0.65
Dimension 3: Professional Development and Social Justice	29	7.00	4.00	6.50	6.21	0.81
Dimension 4: Challenges and Opportunities	29	6.75	0.00	6.25	5.74	1.24

.

As item responses were ordinal (Likert-type), the median and standard deviation will be used as defensible indicators of central tendency; they are robust to skew and outliers and are widely recommended for ordinal items (Jung & Lee, 2011).

2.2. Procedure

In the “EFL Didactics and Practicum” course, as part of their teacher preparation, participants reviewed three different frameworks for project-based lesson planning (

Table 2. Summary of the features of the PBL frameworks.

Feature	Jin et al. (2018)	Taha (2018)	Anderson (2021)
Orientation	Highly scaffolded, outcome-aligned project	Practical, resourceful, teacher-experiment model	Research-based, comprehensive TESOL model
Focus	Authentic communication through a themed project	Student creativity, low-budget projects	Clear definition, project types, assessment
Structure	5-step project cycle	Flexible, experience-driven	Detailed PBL framework with stages
Teacher Role	Facilitator + assessor	Facilitator, consultant	Planner → tutor → assessor
Student Agency	Moderate; guided choices	High; students design products	High; choose topics/products
Assessment	Strongly tied to LOs	Limited (mainly participation + outputs)	Rigorous multi-component assessment
Project Examples	Fundraising event	Scrapbooks, miniatures	6-category taxonomy of project types

). They reflected on the advantages and drawbacks of each one and collaborated to build an adapted PBL lesson-planning framework, which combines the structure of Jin et al. (2018), adopts the creativity and student ownership of Taha (2018) and implements the rigour and product focus of Anderson (2021), with a strong emphasis on social justice strategies, gamification (definition and examples), and scaffolding. Additionally, it considered differentiation, classroom management, explicit instruction, and multimodal assessment. The lesson plans were not necessarily expected to be implemented at schools; therefore, participants had the freedom to choose the technologies and resources according to their preferences. After three weeks of onsite and autonomous work, each participant completed a PBL lesson plan including materials and resources. Then, they signed up for the individual semi-structured interview and completed the 7-point Likert scale.

2.3. Data Analysis Techniques

First, all lesson plans and interviews were transcribed verbatim, and repeated readings of the data were conducted to identify units of analysis documenting all decisions in an audit trail to maintain transparency (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Then, an inductive content analysis approach was employed (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) and a codebook with clear operational definitions and exemplar quotes was developed.

Next, pilot coding was conducted on a subsample of transcripts; codes were refined and reflective memos and a documented coding process were maintained to enhance dependability (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). For full coding, codes were merged into coherent categories, and both conceptual analysis and relational analysis were conducted (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).

In the interpretation phase, differentiation between manifest content and latent content was used, situating insights within the research questions and the broader literature while ensuring traceability of coding decisions (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Finally, results were reported by visualising category prevalence, using ATLAS.ti, memos, and strategies deployed to enhance credibility and confirmability (Trausan-Matu & Slotta, 2021). For the analysis of the 29 responses to the Likert scale, descriptive statistics were employed to calculate median scores and standard deviations. Since the study was qualitatively led, the Likert-type items were included to provide descriptive triangulation with interviews and artefacts.

3. Results

3.1. Dimension 1: Planning Gamified PBL Lessons

This first section addresses the sub-research question “What learning goals, social issues, teaching strategies and activities do participants perceive as key in their lesson plans?”

Teacher candidates’ main goals in designing gamified PBL lessons (

Table 3. Main goals when designing the gamified project-based lesson.

Category	Subcategory
Student Engagement	Gamification for learning curiosity
	Gamification for participation
	Gamification for student empowerment and voice
Type of learning	Collaborative
	Authentic
	Meaningful
Social awareness	Environmental
	Inclusion
	Empathy and inspiration towards others
Non-cognitive skills	Critical thinking
	Research skills

) were centred on collaborative, meaningful, authentic learning experiences using gamification to foster curiosity, participation, and empowerment. Participants sought projects aligned with the curriculum while also providing opportunities for authentic language use. As one noted, goals included engaging students in addressing school dropouts while developing English skills, collaboration, and creativity in meaningful contexts. Another emphasised developing environmental awareness and empathy, wanting students to express opinions and solutions beyond grammar practice, etc. Participants reported (M = 6.0, SD = 0.80) that their projects effectively addressed real-world social issues.

The lesson plans are consistent with explicit learning goals and staged teaching sequences. Regarding the type of learning, the participants’ goals to make the lesson authentic and meaningful are evidenced in their lesson plans as they include multimodal outputs (e.g., videos, podcasts, posters, social media artefacts) for authentic audiences. In the same way, lesson plans instruct students to incorporate real community voices explicitly connecting language use to local contexts.

In terms of the selection of social issues addressed in the project, the category that stood out the most was language curriculum alignment. Participants expressed that they chose topics that matched the language curriculum and were local or global concerns, as one participant mentioned, “I chose climate justice because it connects environmental awareness with human rights and social responsibility. It is a global issue that directly affects students’ futures, and it offers multiple perspectives for discussion and reflection in English” (P3). Social justice and environmental awareness were also addressed as topics that “connect to students’ everyday experiences and allow them to reflect on fairness, respect, and inclusion, which are central to the idea of justice” (P24). Bullying, interculturality and digital relationships were regarded as central to learners’ personal experiences in their everyday lives, as one participant indicated: “I chose online relationships and red flags because digital communication is a central part of teenagers’ lives, and the issue directly connects to equity, consent and safety, which are key components of social justice in the digital age” (P43) (see

Table 4. Social issues addressed in the projects.

Category	Subcategory
Language curriculum	Contents, units and textbook
Local and global themes	Chile and local issues
	Global issues
Social justice and equity	Social justice
	Inclusion
	Human rights
Environmental issues	Environment
	Sustainability
	Pollution
Student experiences and context	Students’ reality and personal experiences
	Bullying
	Interculturality
	Digital relationships

). On a scale from 1 to 7, participants reported a median of 6.0 (SD = 1.01). After the training on gamified PBL, participants reported feeling confident addressing issues of social justice in the classroom.

The lesson plans showed that the social justice issues addressed were highly connected to the national curriculum, particularly those related to environmental issues (

Table 5. Lesson plan sub-topics connected to the national curriculum.

Topics	Practical Strategy
Local environmental awareness and advocacy	Advocacy campaign
Climate change causes, effects, and solutions	Solution proposal
Sustainable practices and behaviour change	Advocacy campaign
Conservation and biodiversity	Art for justice
Environmental justice and climate equity	Storytelling for change

). Additionally, lesson plans illustrate consistency in the type of practical strategies chosen, with most of them focusing on advocacy campaigns.

The projects were guided in the lesson plan by driving questions that focused on issues that address social justice at an individual level for direct action, rather than addressing challenges at a systemic level.

With respect to the pedagogical strategies that participants prioritised in the design of their lesson, the teaching approach that stood out the most was project-based, followed by teaching strategies such as scaffolding, modelling, storytelling, and differentiation (

Table 6. Pedagogical strategies prioritised by teacher candidates when planning.

Category	Subcategory
Teaching approaches	Project-based learning/PBL
	Other approaches
Teaching strategies	Scaffolding
	Modelling
	Storytelling
	Differentiation

). This indicates that participants emphasise meaningful and student-centred strategies, providing the necessary support and examples to students while working on their task. One of the participants stated, “I prioritised the PBL approach combined with strategy-based frameworks, focusing on active learning, strategy use, and reflection” (P37). Collaborative learning was also highlighted as participants expressed prioritising students working together with designated roles: “I prioritised mainly collaborative learning through structured group roles, and scaffolding through graphic organisers and modelling to ensure all learners could access the content and succeed in the task” (P44). Differentiation was mentioned by some of the participants: “I also incorporated tiered differentiation and scaffolding with the goal of involving all students in the making of the project” (P19). On a scale from 1 to 7, participants reported a median of 5.0 (SD = 0.60). For participants, the design of collaborative activities was central to the success of their projects.

As for the collaborative activities, group work was mentioned by most participants (

Table 7. Type of activities used to complete project tasks.

Category	Subcategory
Collaborative learning	Group work
	Assigned roles
	Think-Pair-Share
	Brainstorming
	Peer feedback
	Self-assessment
Collaborative outputs	Poster
	Video
	Podcast
	Triptych
	News channel

) as it was used to complete a task, in many cases using designated roles to ensure all learners could participate in the project: “The lesson included several collaborative activities such as group work for creating the ‘Community Hero’ poster” (P25). Strategies such as “Think-pair-share” and “Brainstorming” were also implemented by some participants: “Think-Pair-Share” and group brainstorming sessions were used during the planning and development” (P7). Finally, a few participants also stated employing a range of collaborative outputs such as posters, videos, and podcasts, which suggest participants made use of different strategies for students to work collaboratively: “They would brainstorm together, plan their podcast, and record it as a team” (P52). On a scale from 1 to 7, participants reported a median of 6.0 (SD = 1.25). For participants, the planned gamified format enhanced student interaction and peer learning.

While lesson plans included activities of a collaborative and cooperative nature through group or pair work, they often showed teacher-structured pathways (assigned roles, strict time limits, checkpoints) that constrain autonomy in practice. Similarly, lesson plans displayed teacher monitoring and proximity control as central to maintaining participation, indicating a more managed form of engagement. Where interviews suggested dialogic classroom practices, lesson plans sometimes defaulted to structured, time-bounded tasks that limited extended student inquiry. Regarding the collaborative products, the lesson plans showed a mix of digital and tangible products.

3.2. Dimension 2: Gamification for Learning

This section addresses the sub-research question “In which way could gamification support or challenge learning?”

Regarding the aspects in which gamification supported participants’ lessons, engagement, participation, and topic accessibility were the most mentioned categories: “Gamification strongly supported my aims by increasing engagement and encouraging participation from all students, especially those who are usually shy or hesitant in English” (P44). Participants also mentioned that use of badges motivated collaboration and teamwork (

Table 8. Ways gamification supported or challenged the candidates’ teaching aims.

Category	Subcategory
Gamification support	Engagement
	Participation
	Topic accessibility
	Excitement
	Dynamism and goal orientation
	Collaboration
Gamification challenges	Focus on teaching
	Competition
	Class behaviour

). One of the aspects that challenged participants was the teaching focus of gamification, as game elements made it difficult for students to remain on task. Competition was also a difficulty for a few participants who struggled with maintaining healthy competition and classroom behaviour: “It also presented the challenge of maintaining balance between fun and learning focus. I had to ensure that competition remained healthy and that students valued learning outcomes as much as the points and badges” (P31). On a scale from 1 to 7, participants reported a median of 6.0 (SD = 1.40). For participants, the project design encouraged meaningful student participation through gamification.

Concerning the game elements that participants included in their lesson, the categories that were mentioned the most were related to learning progression and recognition, suggesting that they prioritised presenting their students with a challenge (

Table 9. Game elements (e.g., points, levels, narratives) and their rationale.

Category	Subcategory
For learning progression	Points for feedback
	Levels, quests, missions, and challenges; progress tracker; journey map; random roulette
For learning recognition	Badges for skill recognition
	Awards for motivation
	Feedback for respecting others
	Points for collaboration
Roles	Narratives
	Role play and characters

). Points, badges, and awards were used to reward students after completing a task, give feedback on learning, collaboration, and soft skills (empathy and respect, for example), and make their learners experience a sense of achievement: “Badges were used to reward specific achievements (‘Empathy Expert’, ‘Research Ranger’), recognise diverse skills beyond just the final product” (P22). Other categories were narrative and roleplay as ways of making learners as part of a story, suggesting participants also paid attention to engaging learners through an immersive experience: “I incorporated a narrative where students became ‘Agents of Change’ to immediately create a purpose” (P36). On a scale from 1 to 7, participants reported a median of 6.0 (SD = 1.25). For participants, the planned gamified format enhanced student interaction and peer learning.

Gamified elements (quests, badges, points, leaderboards, final boss challenges) appeared across lesson plans, matching interview reports of using game mechanics. Additionally, elements such as badges, awards, and journey maps were present in digital and tangible formats. Conversely, lesson plans showed that gamification was frequently used for behavioural management (points for on-time work, losing points for misbehaviour) or task completion (mission badges). This illustrates that some gamified features tended to be formulaic rather than designed for learning progression or recognition, as reported in the interviews.

Participants mentioned that gamification has the potential to trigger critical thinking, collaboration, reflection, social justice, and engagement when used thoughtfully (

Table 10. Potential of gamification to support critical thinking and social justice.

Category	Subcategory
Gamification design	Purposeful and thoughtful
	Thoughtfully
Critical Thinking	Critical thinking
	Reflection
	Engagement to go further
	Safe space for thinking of real issues

): “When designed thoughtfully, gamification can frame complex social issues as challenges to be solved, motivating students to engage in critical analysis and problem-solving” (P21). For participants, gamification can definitely support critical thinking and social justice. Game elements can create a safe and motivating space in which learners not only experience fun but also think deeply about real issues while respecting others’ perspectives: “Gamification supports critical thinking when game mechanics require students to make meaningful choices with consequences in this project” (P24). On a scale from 1 to 7, participants reported a median of 6.0 (SD = 1.25). For participants, gamification helped them foster critical thinking about social issues.

The potential described in the interviews can be identified in the lesson plans. For example, the lesson projects included driving questions that convert topics into problems that require assumptions, evidence, and conclusions. In the same way, the lesson plans included tasks that forced students to select and weigh evidence, anticipate counterarguments, and adapt language for audiences. Additionally, some of the lesson plans included tasks that involved community voices, which engaged students in analysing issues from multiple stakeholders, increasing the complexity of reasoning. Furthermore, most of the lesson plans included self-assessment and reflection prompts, which required students to evaluate their own reasoning and plan improvements.

Regarding the aspects that encouraged learners from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (

Table 11. Ways participants perceived their projects encouraged student participation.

Category	Subcategory
Scaffolding	Sentence starters and frames
	Visuals
	Bilingual materials
	Tiered instruction
	Choice of presentation formats
Classroom management	Grouping
	Student roles
	Modelling
	Giving examples
	Peer-assessment and self-assessment

), the category that stood out the most was scaffolding via visuals, sentence frames, and bilingual materials to draw learners’ attention, encourage them to start speaking in English, and motivate them to participate in the project. This suggests that participants employed different tools to support their learners in staying on task: “The project encouraged participation from diverse students through multiple, intentional design features: bilingual vocabulary lists providing Spanish-English environmental terms supported English-language learners while validating their home language” (P39). Differentiation and tiered instruction supported learners from different linguistic contexts and contributed to addressing classroom management to make all learners take part in the projects: “I used visuals and flexible grouping to make sure all students could participate” (P14). Comprehensive scaffolding, differentiation, and tiered instruction at three levels allowed learners to use alternative formats for presentations (posters, slides, or short videos), emphasising peer- and self-assessment during the closing and reflection lesson stage to promote reflection and respectful dialogue. On a scale from 1 to 7, participants reported a median of 6.0 (SD = 0.96). Participants planned appropriate scaffolding to support all learners.

Lesson plans consistently reflected the inclusion of diverse scaffolding strategies at all stages of the projects. These included strategies that provided language scaffolds (sentence starters, vocabulary lists, bilingual glossaries), task scaffolds (role cards, step-by-step task cards, graphic organisers, curated resource lists), behavioural or time scaffolds (visible timers, attention signals, talking tokens).

Table 12. Groups of digital tools included in lesson plans.

Category	Digital Tool	Purpose
A. Presentation and visual support tools	Projector/Smartboard	For driving questions, videos, instructions, models
	Canva	For slides, posters, infographics, leaderboards, videos
	PowerPoint	For teacher or student presentations
	Google Slides	For modelling, campaigns, showcases
	Genially	For interactive content, gamification templates, leaderboards
B. Video, audio and media creation tools	Smartphones	For video and audio recording
	Tablets	For filming, editing, researching
	Video cameras	For recording documentaries or reports
	Clipchamp	For video editing (trailers, documentaries)
	CapCut	For video editing (awareness campaigns)
	Canva Video Editor	For video creation and editing
	Audio recording apps/software	For podcasts, voice-overs
	Subtitling tools	For English subtitles for videos
C. Research and information tools	Internet/Web browsers	For research and information gathering
	YouTube	For educational videos, modelling, tutorials
	Online news websites	For media analysis, current issues
	Digital textbooks (PDF/online)	For content reference
	Online articles and infographics	For research support
	Online translation tools	For language support
D. Collaboration, organisation and scaffolding	Google Docs	For scripts, rubrics, checklists, worksheets
	Padlet	For brainstorming, peer feedback, sharing work
	Google Drive/Cloud storage	For sharing resources and student products
	Digital graphic organisers	For mind maps, planners
	Digital checklists and rubrics	For self-, peer-, and teacher assessment
E. Interaction, feedback and assessment	Digital tool	Purpose
	Mentimeter	For brainstorming, voting, peer interaction
	Kahoot	For voting, gamified assessment
	Online surveys/forms	For peer- and self-assessment
	Emoji-based digital scales	For peer feedback
F. Gamification and classroom management	Digital badges	For rewards for missions, teamwork, creativity
	Digital leaderboards	For tracking progress
	Online roulette/random selector	For group order, topic selection
	Digital timers	For time management
	Sound level metres (online)	For noise control
	QR codes	For access to tools, voting, videos
G. Artificial intelligence tools	ChatGPT-4	For image generation or creative ideas
	Gemini AI 2.5 Flash	For image generation

below illustrates seven groups of digital tools that participants included when designing their gamified project-based lessons. These tools had different instructional purposes, very specific teaching points and can be grouped into seven categories: (1) Presentation and visual support tools, (2) Video, audio and media creation tools, (3) Research and information tools, (4) Collaboration, organisation and scaffolding, (5) Interaction, feedback and assessment, (6) Gamification and classroom management and (7) Artificial intelligence tools.

Teacher candidates were not simply adopting digital tools at a technical level but rather designing an integrated pedagogical ecosystem that aligned gamification, project-based learning (PBL), assessment, and digital literacies. Technologies were selected and combined based on their capacity to support learning objectives, collaboration, and meaning-making rather than their novelty. Presentation and visual support tools (e.g., Genially, Canva, smartboards) acted as instructional anchors, helping to clarify driving questions, project stages, and game mechanics. For example, projects frequently integrated tools such as Genially or Canva to design interactive advocacy campaigns, using Google Docs or Padlet to scaffold collaboration and peer feedback.

The prominent use of video, audio, and media creation tools indicates a strong commitment to multimodal and authentic learning. By engaging learners in the production of documentaries, awareness campaigns, podcasts, and subtitled videos, teacher candidates position students as designers and communicators of knowledge rather than passive recipients. Accessing online news, infographics, educational videos, and digital textbooks allows learners to engage with real-world issues and multiple perspectives, which strengthens the social relevance of projects and supports education for democratic participation and social justice. Collaboration and scaffolding tools (e.g., Google Docs, Padlet, digital organisers, rubrics, and checklists) foreground the process dimension of learning. These tools make thinking visible, structure peer interaction, and support formative assessment practices that emphasise feedback, reflection, and learner agency.

3.3. Dimension 3: Gains and Learning from Planning Gamified PBL Lessons

This last section addresses the sub-research question “What gains do participants perceive from planning gamified PBL lessons?”

Regarding the aspects in which the gamified PBL lesson impacted participants’ future development as teachers (

Table 13. Participants’ perceptions of how the lesson-planning experience influenced their development as future English teachers.

Category	Subcategory
Teaching practices	Understanding of PBL
	Avoiding isolated grammar points
	Teaching beyond vocabulary and grammar
	Valuing lesson planning
	Confidence gain
	Integrating gamification, social values and inclusion

), they mentioned the true understanding of PBL, the planning time investment and the acknowledgement that PBL goes beyond teaching language components, aiming for collaboration, critical thinking, and meaningful communication: “It has pushed me to move beyond teaching grammar in isolation and focus on purposeful communication” (P 37). Another aspect that was highlighted was the gaining of professional confidence when integrating gamification, social justice, and PBL: “I learned how to integrate English with global issues, connect gamification with social values, and plan systematically for inclusion and differentiation” (P 49). On a scale from 1 to 7, participants reported a median of 7.0 (SD = 1.05). This lesson-planning experience contributed to their growth as future English teachers.

Concerning their learning about teaching for social justice (

Table 14. Participants perceived learning about teaching for social justice.

Category	Subcategory
Voice and Agency	Student voice
	Student agency
	Community advocacy
Societal values	Empathy
	Respect
	Cultural awareness
Critical Thinking	Critical thinking
	Reflection
Inequality awareness	Inequality
Collaboration	Community advocacy

), some participants mentioned voice, agency, and advocacy as strategies to provide their learners with the tools to express their opinions and arguments in the classroom: “I learned that teaching for social justice means helping students recognise inequality and empowering them to express their voices through language” (P35). When learners research and use language to talk about issues that affect their community, they see English as a tool for advocacy and participation and understand core values such as empathy, respect, and social awareness: “Many students do not receive this kind of guidance at home, so this lesson became a space to reinforce empathy, respect, and cultural awareness” (P51). For the participants, teaching social justice means helping learners recognise inequality and empowering them to express their voices through language. On a scale from 1 to 7, participants reported a median of 7.0 (SD = 0.86). Participants stated they developed new competencies related to inclusive and socially responsive teaching.

The tasks included in the lesson plan illustrate that participants provide room for students’ voices within the boundaries of the student role. For instance, discussion and planning activities were closely controlled by the teacher. In addition, student agency tended to be constrained to completing and designing tasks as in most of the lessons, summative assessments of the product were carried out by the teacher only. In those cases, peer-assessment and self-assessment were focused on collaborative skills.

In terms of the competencies (

Table 15. Participants perceived competencies that were strengthened through this experience.

Category	Subcategory
Teacher competencies	Lesson planning
	Instructional design
	Project-based learning
	Gamification
	Classroom management
	Differentiation, accommodation, and scaffolding
	Assessment and feedback

), participants reported that, when planning their gamified PBL lessons, lesson planning, classroom management, differentiation, accommodation, and scaffolding were the competencies they perceived as most developed: “I strengthened my abilities in instructional design, inclusive planning to take all learning preferences into consideration, formative assessment, and classroom management” (P32). For participants, gamification could support critical thinking, social justice, differentiation, and accommodation if used purposefully and consciously. On a scale from 1 to 7, participants reported a median of 6.0 (SD = 1.29). Participants were able to adapt their lesson planning to meet the needs of diverse learners and encounter challenges when integrating game elements into the lesson (M = 5, SD = 1.37).

With regard to the advice participants provided to other teachers planning similar lessons (

Table 16. Advice for other teacher candidates planning similar lessons.

Category	Subcategory
Professional advice to others	Gamification use
	Scaffolding
	Modelling
	Flexible and manageable teaching
	Tiered instruction
	Social justice

), gamification employed jointly with scaffolding, manageable and flexible teaching, and modelling can support the learning objectives: “Plan your scaffolding meticulously—the support structures are what make complex, collaborative projects successful for all learners” (P6). Breaking each lesson into manageable and flexible steps and keeping the selected social issue authentic and relevant can really make a change in the lesson and classroom atmosphere: “My advice for other teachers is to start with your main learning goals and social justice theme first” (P11). For participants, the lesson-planning project revealed unexpected opportunities for student engagement (M = 7, SD = 1.44), and they would recommend gamified project-based learning to other teacher candidates (M = 7, SD = 1.92).

4. Discussion

This study drew on the CRPK framework (Ogodo, 2024) and the CRDS model (Rigney, 2019) to examine the views of English-language teacher candidates who designed gamified project-based lessons aimed at fostering inclusive learning and social justice in culturally diverse school contexts. The findings indicate that participants value the opportunity to design these projects and perceive gamified elements as having strong potential for enhancing students’ engagement, collaboration, and critical thinking. Particularly, regarding the first sub-research question: “What learning goals, social issues, teaching strategies and activities do participants perceive as key in their lesson plans?”, this group of teacher candidates showed a clear commitment to PBL principles (collaboration, real-world relevance), with gamification positioned as a motivational layer to enhance engagement, curiosity, and student voice. Additionally, they perceived the selection of topics that are aligned with the national curriculum (e.g., environmental topics) and linked to students’ lived experiences (e.g., bullying, digital relationships, interculturality) as key, highlighting the participants’ sensitivity to learner relevance. These findings suggest that culturally responsive English lessons could be created through gamified PBL, as suggested by Breunig (2016) and Huang et al. (2023). Similarly, the use of multimodal products and real or authentic audiences suggests a strong understanding of meaningful language use, going beyond grammar-focused instruction. Additionally, participants reported confidence in addressing social justice issues. This suggests that structured training in gamified PBL could reduce apprehension around integrating sensitive or complex topics in language classrooms (Silva, 2022).

Regarding the second sub-research question, “In which way could gamification support or challenge learning?”, participants mentioned that gamification supported learning primarily by enhancing student engagement, participation, and access to complex social justice topics, particularly for hesitant language learners, and functioned as an inclusive pedagogy (Coelho & Abreu, 2025). Similarly, these pre-service teachers argued that through recognition-focused elements such as badges and points, gamification also supported learning by valuing collaboration, effort, and socio-emotional skills, although competitive mechanics occasionally challenged learning by disrupting instructional focus and classroom behaviour. Regarding challenges, participants emphasised that gamification supported critical thinking and social justice learning only when mechanics were purposefully designed to require reflection, decision-making, and perspective-taking; otherwise, they risked becoming motivational distractions (Briones Suárez et al., 2024). Finally, while gamified designs incorporating extensive scaffolding supported learning by increasing inclusion and sustained participation; they also challenged learning by constraining learner autonomy, highlighting an ongoing tension between structured support and meaningful student agency.

For the last sub-research question, “What gains do participants perceive from planning gamified PBL lessons?”, participants perceived planning these types of lesson as a significant source of professional growth, reshaping how they conceptualise English teaching and their future roles as educators. Participants reported gaining a deeper understanding of PBL as a holistic pedagogical approach that moves beyond isolated grammar instruction towards purposeful communication, collaboration, and critical thinking, while also recognising the central role of careful and time-intensive lesson planning. The experience appeared to strengthen professional confidence, particularly in integrating gamification with social justice, inclusion, and differentiation, suggesting that structured design opportunities could reduce uncertainty around combining innovative methodologies with socially responsive teaching (Farrelly & Wroblewski, 2024). Participants also perceived meaningful gains in their understanding of teaching for social justice, especially in relation to student voice and advocacy, viewing English as a tool for engaging learners with inequality, empathy, and community issues. This gain is consistent with previous studies that explore English lessons as a way to address socially relevant issues (Bollas, 2021; Khurnia et al., 2025). While relevant, these findings also unveil several tensions that shed light on the gaps between equity-oriented intentions, gamification, personal views, and the pedagogical designs created.

A first tension deals with the pre-service teachers’ views about social justice and the ways these materialised in the planned lessons. Although lesson plans addressed socially relevant themes (Hosseini et al., 2024), these were predominantly framed at the level of individual awareness, empathy, and behavioural change. Rarely did candidates articulate how projects might engage students in interrogating structural inequalities, institutional power, or historical conditions, which are central to culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2018). When digital technologies were planned primarily as tools for multimodal expression or advocacy campaigns, they functioned as vehicles for representation rather than as tools for critical inquiry, thereby risking the reproduction of dominant discourses under the guise of inclusion (Pangrazio, 2016). While participants expressed strong commitments to equity and social justice, these commitments were primarily articulated at the level of intentions and themes, rather than translated into concrete instructional design decisions that redistribute power and authority in the classroom. This tension may be due to the limited opportunities that candidates tend to have for exploring social justice beyond conceptual understanding as part of teacher education (Breunig, 2016; Goodwin & Darity, 2019; Mills & Ballantyne, 2016).

A second tension relates to the highly structured nature of the lesson plans. While these teacher-structured pathways may reflect candidates’ concerns for classroom management, accountability, and equitable participation, they also reveal a model of engagement that prioritises control and efficiency over extended inquiry and learner autonomy. This is particularly evident in how gamification was conceptualised and implemented. Although gamification was frequently used to promote engagement, it was predominantly framed as a motivational or regulatory mechanism, limiting its potential to support learner agency or challenge traditional power relations. Coelho and Abreu (2025) argue that when gamified elements are designed as mechanisms for monitoring task completion or participation (rather than as a pedagogical tool that scaffolds meaningful choice, cognitive challenge, or collaborative problem-solving), gamification becomes reduced to a motivation and a managerial device. This would also shed light on the participants’ understanding of participation and engagement. Such extrinsically oriented designs (Briones Suárez et al., 2024; Deterding et al., 2011) risk reinforcing existing power and language asymmetries, particularly in culturally diverse classrooms (Riley et al., 2025). Instructional designs often retained familiar structures of sequencing and control, suggesting that candidates drew on established instructional scripts as a way to manage uncertainty in complex, equity-oriented teaching contexts. This pattern may stem, on the one hand, from a need for a deeper analysis of teacher candidates’ views when integrating innovation into their practice (Duan et al., 2024; Zaier & Maina, 2022); on the other hand, from the disconnection between teacher education and the realities of the school context (Ahmed, 2019), which underscores the need for practice-informed research in the use of games and educational technologies more broadly (Guerrero-Puerta, 2024; Patras et al., 2025).

A third tension emerges when contrasting the candidates’ aspirations for dialogic, collaborative learning and the procedural nature of their lesson planning (Reese Lewis et al., 2019). Although PBL and digital technologies offer opportunities for collaborative knowledge-building and multimodal dialogue, they were often used as productivity tools (to produce posters, videos, or podcasts within fixed timelines) rather than as spaces for open-ended exploration or collective sense-making. This limits the potential for students to engage with culturally situated meanings, perspectives, and communicative practices (Gay, 2018; Berlian & Huda, 2022). This tension may reflect the need for more sustained preparation that enables pre-service teachers not only to understand PBL conceptually but also to design and implement culturally relevant projects in diverse educational settings (Magaji et al., 2024).

A fourth tension links to the idea that a digital ecosystem must also address the digital divide, which remains a significant pedagogical and ethical concern. While participants’ lesson plans assume access to devices, stable internet connectivity, and digital literacies, not all learners—and not all teacher candidates—have equitable access to these resources. Research on the digital divide emphasises that inequity extends beyond hardware and connectivity to include differences in digital skills, meaningful use, and pedagogical support (Selwyn, 2010; van Dijk, 2020). In this sense, gamified PBL environments risk unintentionally reproducing existing social and educational inequalities if access and participation are not carefully scaffolded.

These tensions also shape how student agency was conceptualised. Although candidates described the projects in terms of voice, advocacy, and empowerment, the lesson plans often constrained student agency to task completion within teacher-defined parameters. For example, the teacher assigned group roles, fixed time frames, and scheduled checkpoints. In the same way, the lesson plans emphasised teacher supervision and proximity as key tools for sustaining participation. Thus, student voice was present but largely limited to the role of “student-as-producer” rather than “student-as-co-designer” or “student-as-knowledge authority” (Riley et al., 2025). This suggests that participants’ understanding of agency remains procedural rather than transformative (Mameli et al., 2025). Similarly, although participants reported gains in assessment and feedback competencies, summative assessment remained predominantly teacher-controlled, with peer- and self-assessment mainly focused on collaboration rather than language use. These findings align with research showing that pre-service teachers often rely on traditional assessment instruments (Tagle et al., 2024), indicating that self-perceived gains may mask unresolved tensions or blind spots in practice (Orellana-Fernández et al., 2026). The persistent tensions surrounding student agency, which cut across both PBL and gamification implementation, may stem from the participants’ own experiences as learners within traditional educational systems (Duan et al., 2024; Magaji et al., 2024; Mameli et al., 2025).

Overall, the findings underscore that equity-oriented intentions, engagement-focused gamification, and digital tool integration do not automatically translate into emancipatory pedagogical designs. Even as pre-service teachers articulate commitments to social justice, planning practices frequently reproduce dominant power relations in which teachers retain epistemic and evaluative authority. Explicitly engaging with power, knowledge, and agency is essential in Chilean teacher education research because it makes visible how instructional designs can either reproduce or challenge entrenched inequalities, particularly in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms shaped by historical and structural disparities. Collectively, these findings suggest that planning gamified PBL lessons functioned as a reflective learning process that expanded participants’ pedagogical repertoire, while also exposing areas (e.g., shared agency and assessment) requiring further development. Additionally, these findings suggest that the gap between equity-oriented intentions and instructional design arises not from a lack of commitment, but from structural, conceptual, and pedagogical conditions that shape how novice teachers learn to translate justice into practice. For digital technologies in culturally diverse communities, this highlights the need for teacher education programmes to move beyond technical and motivational framings of digital innovation towards explicit engagement with power, knowledge, and agency in pedagogical design.