Reimagining Natural History Museums Through Gamification: Time, Engagement, and Learning in Teacher Education Contexts

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of a gamified educational experience on the training of future teachers, focusing on a visit to the Natural History Pavilion at the University of Almería, compared to a traditional instructional approach. A quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test design was employed with both undergraduate and master’s degree teacher education students, combining quantitative analysis with complementary data. The findings indicate that participants in the gamified groups demonstrated significant gains in knowledge acquisition following the visit, as well as higher levels of appreciation for the activity itself. This study concludes that gamification cognitively enriches the museum learning experience and stands out as an innovative and pedagogically relevant strategy in teacher education.

1. Introduction

Education beyond the traditional classroom setting—particularly within heritage environments and museum spaces—has gained increasing relevance in recent years, not only as a strategy for scientific outreach but also as a pedagogical tool aimed at fostering more holistic forms of learning. Such approaches contribute to the cultivation of a critical and environmentally sensitive citizenry [1]. Within this framework, natural history museums and botanical gardens emerge as key educational settings, linking disciplinary knowledge to formative experiences that offer added pedagogical value. As argued by [2], teacher education—especially in fields connected to the arts, sciences, and early childhood education—demands initiatives that actively and meaningfully integrate direct engagement with natural heritage. Accordingly, this study explores the intersection of heritage and learning through gamification, embedded within a university-based educational experience aimed at prospective teachers.

Natural heritage plays a crucial role in advancing education for sustainability, biodiversity, and global citizenship. Museum spaces and specialized exhibitions have increasingly become strategic platforms for fostering a culture of conservation from early childhood through adulthood [3]. In this regard, ref. [4] highlights that the educational potential of such institutions lies not only in the richness of their content but also in the pedagogical opportunities they present to support active and contextualized learning. Consequently, natural history museums are called upon to focus their efforts on the didactics of their collections, maintaining scientific rigor while adopting accessible and visually compelling narratives [5].

This imperative has gradually become one of the most pressing challenges facing contemporary museology—the need to align museum content with educational curricula—not through isolated activities, but by embedding learning as an integral and permanent feature of exhibitions [6,7]. This reconfiguration positions educational content as a central axis connecting the museum collection with pedagogical practice [8]. Such alignment requires a critical rethinking of how visits are planned, the role of the educator, the modes of student engagement, and the scaffolding of content before, during, and after the museum experience [9].

1.1. Gamification as an Active Learning Strategy in Education: Concepts and Distinctions

Gamification, understood as the structured application of game dynamics and mechanics in non-play contexts [10], has established itself as one of the most promising active learning methodologies in the field of education. Unlike game-based learning, it does not require a fully developed play environment; rather, it is organized around challenges, rewards, and narrative frameworks that transform the educational experience into an immersive and motivating process [11,12,13].

In recent years, the integration of active learning methodologies—such as gamification—into informal educational spaces has gained traction within teacher education. Museums, botanical gardens, and heritage centers are increasingly recognized as experiential learning environments at the crossroads of education, technology, and social engagement.

Unlike game-based learning, which involves the direct use of fully developed play environments with explicit educational goals, gamification entails the structured integration of game dynamics and mechanics such as challenges, rewards, and narrative elements. As Refs. [14,15] point out, its potential lies in the creation of immersive experiences without the need for a formal “game” per se.

Gamification has emerged as one of the most prominent active learning methodologies to gain traction in the field of education, largely due to its innovative nature. Its capacity to enhance student motivation, foster sustained engagement with educational tasks, and significantly increase participation rates has been widely recognized [16]. Numerous studies, including those conducted by [11,12,13,17], have documented the benefits of gamification across various educational levels and disciplines, including science, the humanities, and the arts. By incorporating game-based elements, gamification offers a transformative approach to education. Among the most common gamification tools are point systems, badges, levels, narrative challenges, collaborative dynamics, and leaderboards. These elements not only increase student engagement but also allow for the learning experience to be structured sequentially, with clear objectives, immediate feedback, and symbolic rewards that reinforce commitment [11,12]. It adapts curricular content while activating both cognitive and emotional processes that positively influence student learning outcomes. The distinction between traditional educational games and gamification does not lie in the use of digital tools or in the final product, but rather in the structured deployment of challenges, point systems, narrative frameworks, and rewards that turn learning into an experience of exploration and continuous achievement [18].

1.2. Gamification in Informal Learning Spaces: Museums and Heritage Contexts

Moreover, the integration of active methodologies such as gamification into museum settings responds to the need to reconceptualize visits as immersive learning experiences. These approaches enhance content retention and long-term memory consolidation by anchoring knowledge in lived, meaningful experiences, as opposed to passive, information-based tours [19]. Refs. [20,21,22] have shown that recent studies conducted in contemporary art museums confirm that on-site gamified experiences can significantly improve student performance and foster deeper engagement, particularly through collaborative learning dynamics.

Gamification—understood as the application of game dynamics and mechanics to non-ludic contexts [10]—has been increasingly validated as an effective strategy for boosting learner motivation, attention, and engagement in support of meaningful learning, as emphasized by [23]. In the educational sphere, a broad array of studies has demonstrated its positive effects on knowledge retention, student involvement, and the acquisition of both competencies and content [24,25,26]. However, one relatively underexplored area is its potential impact on the perceived optimal duration of museum or heritage site visits. Understanding how gamification can reshape the perception of time spent in active learning environments opens a compelling line of inquiry for designing more effective and memorable educational experiences. This gap constitutes the central focus of the present study, which empirically examines how gamification influences students’ perception of time during educational museum visits.

These dynamics also contribute to emotionally contextualizing heritage, enhancing immersive educational experiences through meaningful and narrative-rich engagement [27]. Furthermore, they reinforce the pedagogical value of storytelling strategies that go beyond entertainment to serve educational, cultural, and critical thinking objectives [28].

A growing body of research has shown that time perception is closely linked to psychological variables such as attention, interest, and personal involvement [29,30]. This suggests that immersive educational experiences in heritage environments—particularly when structured through active methodologies—may foster greater content retention and a more positive evaluation of the visit. Given the coexistence of visual, sensory, and scientific stimuli in these contexts, their impact can be amplified when structured through a gamified approach [31]. This has led to increased application of gamification in museum and heritage contexts, reflecting a clear intention to move beyond passive visit formats toward more interactive and reflective engagements with both collections and cultural heritage. Recent research supports the use of gamified strategies to promote collaborative learning and critical reflection [32]. Ref. [33] has investigated how gamification influences attention, memory, and time perception during such activities, effectively turning the educational experience into a game-like world.

Scientific production at the intersection of gamification, education, and heritage has shown steady growth since 2015, reaching a notable peak in 2024 (Figure 1). This increase can be attributed to several converging factors: the consolidation of active methodologies in the aftermath of the pandemic, institutional momentum toward educational innovation in non-formal settings, and the expansion of immersive technologies such as augmented reality and serious games applied to learning [34,35,36,37]. Additionally, there has been a marked rise in research projects and public funding initiatives [38] focused on the pedagogical use of cultural heritage, which has further intensified academic output in this field.

Although scholarly interest is increasing [39,40,41,42], the studies reveal limited interdisciplinary uptake and weak links to actual teaching practice; moreover, social impact—as measured by altmetric scores, Appendix A—relies more on digital dissemination than on engagement from traditional academic readerships.

Despite the growing body of research in this field, there remains a notable lack of empirical studies examining not only how such experiences influence student motivation but also how they impact less-explored dimensions such as time perception or perceived learning quality during educational visits. These observations help to contextualize the relevance of this study, which aims to bridge the gap between theoretical interest in gamification and its concrete application within teacher education.

1.3. Gamification in Teacher Education Through Heritage-Based Experiences

In teaching education, particularly within artistic specializations, the museum experience holds significant formative value. It is not merely a matter of visiting or wandering through natural heritage spaces, but of learning how to endow them with pedagogical meaning. Future educators must learn to interpret such spaces and transform them into didactic resources, requiring a deep methodological understanding of how to design meaningful experiences for learners. This entails careful consideration of content, structure, timing, accessibility, and student engagement [43]. Although experiential learning has long been a foundational approach in education, gamification brings an innovative twist by inviting participants to engage with heritage sites through creativity, exploration, and active involvement, while simultaneously provoking critical reflection on the pedagogical value of these environments [44].

Within the artistic domain, educational visits to museum spaces are framed as integral formative experiences. These are conceived as structured learning situations, complemented by moments of reflection and pedagogical application [45]. Such contexts offer opportunities for prospective teachers to test and observe transferable resources for their future classrooms [46] and to develop an understanding of art that is meaningfully connected to its territorial and cultural context [47].

Simultaneously, from the perspective of teacher education—particularly in the arts—these experiences are especially valuable in linking expressive and creative modalities with diverse fields of knowledge. Applying gamification to heritage spaces allows for the integration of scientific observation and play [48], resulting in a fusion of languages and the opportunity to rehearse educational practices that blend art, science, and play as engines of learning.

Consequently, teacher education today demands a broader vision that goes beyond disciplinary content to embrace innovative pedagogical frameworks. In this process, heritage—be it natural, architectural, or cultural—offers an ideal context for developing a wide range of educational competencies, particularly creativity, teamwork, observation, and cultural literacy [49]. However, the integration of heritage-based learning within teacher training programs remains limited and underdeveloped. Designing innovative educational experiences rooted in heritage visits thus represents a powerful means of expanding didactic frameworks and equipping future teachers with the tools needed to apply such approaches in their own classrooms [50]. Moreover, this empowers educators to assume the role of cultural mediators, creative agents, and facilitators of meaningful learning [51].

Bringing these concepts together, gamification not only serves a motivational purpose but also acts as a methodological tool for transforming museum experiences. It provides future teachers with structured opportunities to reflect on their experiences, record perceptions, and connect what they have lived to a more active, critical, and innovative professional practice.

This study is framed within a pilot experience carried out at the Natural History Pavilion of the University of Almería, an exhibition space that integrates a scientific collection, a zoological collection, a paleontological section, and a botanical garden. It had two main objectives. The first was to analyze how the perception of the time required for an educational visit varies according to the type of experience: gamified or traditional. The second was to assess how such experiences impact participating students from the Degree in Education and Master’s in Teacher Training programs, particularly in relation to their professional development and methodological transfer. Comparing these two groups and the two distinct visit formats provides insight into the effectiveness of gamification and how it may influence perceptions of optimal visit duration [52].

Despite the growing interest in gamification within both formal and informal learning contexts, there remains a limited body of empirical research analyzing its direct impact on initial teacher education, particularly in heritage settings. This study positions itself as an original contribution to that field by focusing on underexplored variables such as time perception and methodological transfer.

1.4. Research Question and Objectives

This study poses a central research question: How does gamification influence the perceived duration of an educational visit to a natural heritage site, and what are the pedagogical implications of this variation? To address this question, the following specific objectives are proposed:

• To compare students’ estimated time perceptions before and after the visit, evaluating potential changes based on the nature of the experience.
• To contrast the outcomes of the gamified experience with those of the traditional one, considering participants’ academic level.
• To assess students’ knowledge of the museum prior to and following the visit, to evaluate the impact of gamification on learning outcomes.
• To reflect on the pedagogical implications of the findings, particularly in relation to teacher training and heritage education.

Collectively, these objectives enable an exploration of the relationship between gamification and learning from a holistic perspective, integrating both quantitative and qualitative variables to gain deeper insight into the educational impact of such experiences. Despite the promising premises and demonstrated benefits of gamification, the specific conditions that determine the educational effectiveness of a museum visit are not always thoroughly investigated. This study contributes original empirical evidence on an emerging indicator—namely, time perception—while also helping to redefine the role of museums as dynamic learning environments within university-based teacher education.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and General Approach

This study was conducted using a mixed-methods approach with a predominant quantitative focus, complemented by qualitative data. A quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test design with non-equivalent groups was employed to compare the effects of a gamified educational experience with those of a traditional visit to a heritage site.

2.2. Participants

The didactic experience that forms the basis of this study involved a sample divided into three groups according to academic level and type of visit:

• Group 1: 33 undergraduate students in Early Childhood Education (traditional visit, control group).
• Group 2: 21 undergraduate students in Early Childhood Education (gamified visit).
• Group 3: 24 graduate students from the Master’s in Secondary Education Teaching (specialization in arts) also engaged in a gamified visit.

The total sample consisted of 78, predominantly female (87.18%), university students distributed across two educational levels: undergraduate students in Early Childhood Education and graduate students enrolled in the master’s program for Secondary Education Teachers with a focus on the arts. Of the total participants, 54 students (69.23%) were enrolled in the undergraduate program, while 24 (30.77%) belonged to the master’s program. Regarding the intervention format, 33 students (42.31%) participated in the traditional visit (control group), whereas 45 students (57.69%) experienced a gamified visit.

Although their academic levels and areas of specialization differ, both cohorts were enrolled in university courses related to the didactics of visual and plastic expression, specifically within the Early Childhood Education Degree and the Master’s in Secondary Education Teaching, specializing in drawing and image and visual arts. The visit was scheduled as part of the official academic activities for these courses, and participation in this study was entirely voluntary, and they were informed of the general aims of this study. Data collection instruments (pre-test and post-test questionnaires) were distributed via scannable QR codes at the beginning and end of each session and completed on students’ mobile devices. The lead researcher was present throughout all sessions, providing instructions, coordinating the activity, and addressing any questions, thereby ensuring consistency and methodological integrity across all groups. Basic demographic data, including gender and academic level (undergraduate or graduate), were collected for descriptive and exploratory purposes. The female-majority composition of the sample reflects the typical gender distribution in education-related programs. Anonymity of responses was ensured in all cases, in accordance with ethical guidelines for educational research.

2.3. Intervention Context

The intervention was carried out in a university exhibition space comprising a paleontological, zoological, botanical, and natural history collection. Three independent sessions were conducted, one for each group. The visit modalities differed in the inclusion—or absence—of structured gamification elements. In the gamified groups, the visit incorporated team-based roles, collaborative challenges, observation tasks, and competitive dynamics, all framed within a playful narrative that included a points system and symbolic rewards.

The gamified dynamics implemented in this intervention were not created from scratch but were grounded in prior experiences developed by the author in various museum and educational settings [53,54]. Over several previous academic years, similar activities were carried out with other university student groups, providing opportunities to test, refine, and enhance core components such as narrative structure, challenge difficulty, clarity of instructions, and the overall duration of the experience. These adjustments were guided by both direct observation and the analysis of questionnaires and qualitative feedback from participants, thereby ensuring a gradual and responsive alignment with the specific profile and needs of the students involved in the present study.

2.4. Procedure and Instruments

Data were collected using two ad hoc questionnaires designed by the author: one administered before the visit (pre-test) and the other afterward (post-test). Both instruments included a variety of item types: closed questions (multiple or single choice), open-ended questions, and Likert-scale items. The questionnaires were distributed online using Google Forms, which automatically recorded the submission timestamp, allowing the researchers to calculate the actual duration of the visit. These objective time data were used to compare participants perceived duration with the actual time spent.

The pre-test questionnaire gathered basic demographic information (gender and academic level), students’ expectations regarding visit duration, and prior knowledge of the museum.

The post-test questionnaire collected the same key variables following the visit to enable comparison, as well as evaluations of the activity. It included items assessing acquired knowledge and specific questions about the experience itself, including open-ended responses that provided qualitative insights into participants’ perceptions.

This study followed a multi-phase process:

• Coordination with the museum staff was established to schedule the three visits and inform personnel of the nature and structure of each visit type.
• A consistent visit structure was implemented across groups to ensure comparability. Each session began with the pre-test, completed simultaneously and independently by all participants.
• During the visit—whether traditional or gamified—the author documented the session. In the gamified version, students were divided into teams and assigned specific roles. Gamification elements included playful mechanics such as “powers” (strategic advantages), which allowed participants to exchange members, block competitors, or nullify other teams’ points. These mechanics encouraged collaboration and competition, enhancing student engagement.
• Challenges included on-site drawing tasks, location-based puzzles, and knowledge-based questions, all scored with points. Bonus points were awarded for completing specific challenges to further motivate participants.
• The traditional visit followed a conventional educational format led by a museum educator, who provided standard explanations of the exhibits. All key content covered in the gamified sessions was also included in the traditional version to ensure content equivalence across groups.
• At the end of each visit, the post-test was administered, and its timestamp recorded the official end time of the activity.
• Finally, outside the recorded timeframe, a debriefing session was conducted with the future teachers to reflect on the dynamics of the activity and discuss the relevance of gamification in heritage education.

2.5. Data Analysis

All quantitative data were exported from Google Forms into a spreadsheet and analyzed using statistical software. Descriptive statistics were computed to characterize the sample and study variables, including frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and measures of central tendency and dispersion for numerical variables. Pre-post changes and intergroup differences were analyzed. A significance level of α = 0.05 was applied across all inferential tests.

The following analyses were conducted:

• Descriptive statistics.
• Student’s t-tests for paired and independent samples.
• One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
• Non-parametric tests (Kruskal–Wallis), depending on assumption checks.
• Effect size calculations (Cohen’s d and partial eta squared).
• Post hoc comparisons (Tukey and Dunn tests).

Group comparisons considered both the gamification condition and the academic level. First, the gamified vs. non-gamified groups were compared at the undergraduate level (Group 1 vs. Group 2) to isolate the effect of gamification among academically similar participants. Additionally, the effect of academic level was examined by comparing the two gamified groups to determine whether significant differences could be attributed to the participants’ academic profiles.

A brief qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended post-test questions was also performed, particularly those offering suggestions for improvement. All responses were compiled and thoroughly reviewed to identify emerging categories. Once coded and grouped thematically, these qualitative data were used to contextualize and interpret the quantitative findings, offering nuanced insights and directions for improving future museum-based educational interventions.

This mixed-methods approach allowed for triangulation of the results, enriching the interpretation of findings and generating specific, actionable suggestions.

Although this study is grounded in an empirical analysis, it concurrently integrates a complementary bibliometric and altmetric review to contextualize its academic and social relevance, enriching the empirical findings by mapping the evolution of scholarly discourse and societal impact metrics; it appears in Appendix A.

3. Results

3.1. Actual Visit Duration

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the actual duration of the visit among the three participating groups, as presented in

Table 1. Mean duration of educational visits by group and visit type.

Group	Mean Duration (min)	Standard Deviation	95% Confidence Interval	Estimated Range
G1 (Undergraduate + Traditional)	23.53	2.57	22.65–24.41	20.96–26.1
G2 (Undergraduate + Gamified)	44.58	3.89	42.92–46.24	40.69–48.47
G3 (Master’s + Gamified)	46.63	5.32	44.5–48.76	41.31–51.95

Elaboration by the author.

and

Table 2. ANOVA summary: differences in actual visit duration across groups.

Source	DF	Sum of Square	Mean Square	F Statistic	p-Value
Groups	2	9381.7	4690.9	302.04	<0.001
(between groups)
Error	75	1164.8	15.5
(within groups)
Total	77	10,546.50	137

Elaboration by the author.

. The results revealed statistically significant differences between groups, F(2, 75) = 302.04, p < 0.001, indicating that the type of experience (gamified or not) and the participants’ educational profile accounted for 89% of the observed variability in time spent at the museum.

The post hoc analysis using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test (

Table 3. Tukey’s post hoc comparisons for visit duration between groups.

Pair	Difference	SE	Q	Lower CI	Upper CI	Critical Mean	p-Value
G1–G2	21.05	0.78	27.06	18.42	23.68	2.63	<0.001
G1–G3	23.10	0.75	30.90	20.57	25.63	2.53	<0.001
G2–G3	2.04	0.83	2.46	−0.77	4.86	2.82	0.1986

Elaboration by the author.

) revealed statistically significant differences between the non-gamified group and both gamified groups at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. However, no significant differences were found between the two gamified groups. The mean duration of the visit was lower in Group 1 (M = 23.53 min) compared to the gamified undergraduate group, Group 2 (M = 44.58 min), and the gamified graduate group, Group 3 (M = 46.63 min).

3.2. Perceived Time: Pre–Post Comparison

To assess changes in perceived time before and after the visit, a paired-samples t-test was conducted. As shown in

Table 4. Pre–post comparison of perceived visit duration among participants.

Variable	Mean Estimated Time	Mean Difference	Standard Deviation	95% Confidence Interval	t-Statistic	Effect Size (Cohen’s d)	p-Value
pre-test/post-test	28.7/38.4	+9.68 min	14.22	[6.47–12.89] min	t (77) = 6.01	d = 0.68	<0.001

Elaboration by the author.

, the results revealed a statistically significant difference between the two time points, t (77) = 6.01, p < 0.001, with an average increase of 9.68 min in participants’ time estimates following the experience. The effect size was medium to large (d = 0.68), indicating a substantial difference in perceptions.

These findings support the notion that the lived experience—particularly in gamified visits—leads participants to perceive a longer and more operationally meaningful duration of the museum stay, likely linked to heightened engagement, focused attention, and a more positive evaluation of the activity’s content.

Graduate students in Group 3 estimated a significantly longer duration after the visit (M = 17.71 min difference), whereas Group 1 reported a smaller discrepancy (M = 9.24 min), and Group 2 showed minimal divergence from the actual visit time (M = 1.19 min). The analysis revealed statistically significant differences between groups, suggesting that the gamified experience enhances students’ level of engagement and immersion.

3.3. Change in Knowledge and Teacher Self-Perception

Table 5. Pre–post gains in knowledge by group and visit type.

Variable	Mean Pre–Post	Mean Difference	SD	95% Confidence Interval	t-Statistic	Effect Size (Cohen’s d)	p-Value
G1	1.80–3.10	+1.34	1.16	[0.93–1.76]	t (32) = 6.63	1.15	<0.001
G2	1.80–3.80	+2.04	0.65	[1.74–2.34]	t (20) = 14.26	3.11	<0.001
G3	1.70–3.50	+1.75	0.79	[1.41–2.08]	t (23) = 10.86	2.22	<0.001
G2 + G3	1.70–3.60	+1.88	0.74	[1.66–2.10]	t (44) = 17.18	2.56	<0.001

Elaboration by the author.

presents the impact of the type of educational visit on knowledge acquisition. Statistically significant differences were observed in both the gamified and non-gamified groups. All groups showed significant gains between the pre-test and post-test. In Group 1 (traditional visit), the mean increase was +1.34 points (t (32) = 6.63, p < 0.001, d = 1.15), while in the gamified groups (Groups 2 and 3), the increase was +1.88 points (t (44) = 17.18, p < 0.001, d = 2.56), indicating a very large effect size.

However, as shown in

Table 6. Mann–Whitney U Test for post-visit knowledge scores between gamified and non-gamified groups.

Variable	n	Mean/SD	Mann–Whitney	Statistic Z	p-Value (Bilateral)
G1 pre	33	1.78/0.77	751.5	0.086	0.931
G2, G3 pre	45	1.75/0.17
G1 post	33	3.12/0.92	503.5	−2.44	<0.015
G2, G3 post	45	3.63/0.70

Elaboration by the author.

, the Mann–Whitney U test revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups (U = 503.5, Z = −2.44, p = 0.015). The mean score for the gamified visit group (M = 3.63) was significantly higher than that of the traditional visit group (M = 3.12), with respective medians of 3.67 and 3.00. Although the effect size was small (r = 0.28), the result suggests that the gamified experience led to a noticeable improvement in the understanding of museum content.

In contrast, results showed that prior knowledge levels between the groups were comparable, with medians of 1.67 and 1.75, respectively, and no evidence of pre-existing educational differences. This strengthens the interpretation that the observed improvements can be attributed to the experience itself rather than to initial disparities in knowledge.

These findings confirm the effectiveness of gamified experiences in heritage environments in terms of promoting meaningful learning. The observed effect is not only statistically significant but also pedagogically relevant, with direct implications for the design of teaching and learning experiences in non-formal educational contexts—particularly those aimed at teacher education.

3.4. Interest, Satisfaction, and Activity Evaluation

The analysis of open-ended responses regarding suggestions for improvement revealed marked differences depending on the type of visit (gamified or not). The group that experienced a traditional visit expressed a clear demand for greater dynamism, playfulness, and participation, with more than twenty explicit references to the need for introducing game-based elements (e.g., “It should include some competition or game”, “Make it more playful”, “It needs to be more dynamic”, “Add more engaging and participatory activities”, “It would be more fun with a story”, and “Include games or riddles, especially for children.”).

This group’s comments reflected dissatisfaction with conventional formats and limited engagement—contrasting sharply with the gamified groups, whose feedback was predominantly positive (e.g., G2—Undergraduate and Gamified—“I found it fun and stimulating”, “More time to explore the museum”, “I liked the activity just as it is”, “It should last a bit longer to enjoy it more”, and “Point scoring was motivating.”). Group 3 (Master’s + Gamified) followed a pattern similar to that of Group 2; however, their comments tended to be more critical and reflective. For instance: “I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I believe that gamification successfully motivates most students, but on the other hand, beyond offering brief insights into the museum’s themes and layout, I always feel they are more focused on the game than on the museum itself. (…). I must say that I really enjoyed it”, “They should have explained the characteristics of each display case”, and “It should last a bit longer so we can see things more thoroughly”, “Make the initial explanation more dynamic.”).

Criticism in the gamified groups was mainly logistical, focusing on the limited time for completing challenges or the clarity of instructions—suggesting a pedagogical appropriation of the experience rather than disengagement.

In addition to open responses, four items employing a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) were administered to gauge participants’ perceptions of the activity:

• Q1: Was the visit interesting?
• Q2: Did you enjoy the activity?
• Q3: Do you consider this activity suitable for your future students?
• Q4: How much do you think your future students would enjoy it?

Table 7. Evaluation of the visit: interest, enjoyment, suitability, and anticipated student reception.

Variable	Q1 Mean/SD	Q2 Mean/SD	Q3 Mean/SD	Q4 Mean/SD
G1	3.03/1.2	3.06/1.4	2.91/1.4	2.76/1.4
G2	4.67/0.6	4.71/0.6	4.00/0.8	4.57/0.6
G3	4.68/0.7	4.46/1.0	3.50/1.2	4.21/0.8
G2,3	4.67/0.6	4.59/0.8	3.75/1.1	4.39/0.7

Elaboration by the author.

presents the results following the visit, showing notable differences between participants in gamified experiences and those who attended the traditional visit. The latter group reported significantly lower mean scores across all variables, whereas participants in gamified visits expressed higher interest and satisfaction levels.

These results suggest that gamification not only enhances future teachers’ personal engagement and enjoyment but also positively shifts their perception of the activity’s pedagogical value for young learners. This is particularly relevant in initial teacher training for early childhood education and in the field of heritage didactics.

4. Discussion

The findings confirm that implementing gamified experiences in heritage contexts not only enhances students’ positive perception of learning but also transforms the overall nature of their visit. The significant difference in the duration required for a gamified museum experience compared to a traditional one suggests that gamification activates psychological mechanisms such as sustained attention and emotional engagement with the environment. This is particularly relevant in the case of future teachers, as it allows them to reflect on the effectiveness of active methodologies based on their own firsthand experiences. The post-test improvement in knowledge further reinforces the educational impact of these experiences, especially among undergraduate students, where the novelty of the method appears to produce a stronger cognitive effect.

One of the most significant findings is the high value assigned to item Q4 by participants in the gamified visits, who anticipated that their future students would greatly enjoy a similar activity. Although this is a prospective indicator, it plays a crucial role in initial teacher education, as it reflects the early stages of methodological appropriation. Projecting the lived experience onto a professional context suggests not only a positive evaluation but also a readiness to transfer and adapt the methodology to real teaching scenarios. This forward-looking perspective aligns with previous research on the influence of such experiences on future teaching practices and reinforces the formative value of immersive and participatory activities during the university period.

The results obtained are consistent with previous studies that highlight the positive impact of gamification in museum settings, both in terms of learner engagement and knowledge retention [20,21,22,23]. Specifically, the variation in time perception reinforces recent findings that associate sustained attention and emotional involvement with a longer perceived duration of experiences [29]. These effects are particularly significant in initial teacher education, where as [43] points out, the museum can serve as a transformative learning space when it becomes a structured, reflective, and lived experience.

From a broader perspective, this study addresses a significant methodological gap in teacher education by analyzing how gamified educational experiences influence not only knowledge acquisition but also less-explored dimensions such as time perception and the pedagogical appraisal of heritage site visits. Unlike many previous investigations that focus predominantly on school-based or digital contexts, this research provides empirical evidence of the effectiveness of active methodologies implemented in real museum settings, thereby reinforcing their potential transferability to future educational environments.

Ultimately, this research confirms the transformative potential of gamification in heritage education and underscores its value in teacher training as both a reflective and motivational pedagogical tool.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates the pedagogical value of gamification in heritage education and shows that, when applied in cultural settings, it can meaningfully transform and enhance the learning experience of educational visits while also improving knowledge acquisition among students. The use of structured play—through the implementation of gamification mechanics in educational environments—reframes the traditional museum visit into a more active and immersive experience.

The findings reveal that such interventions significantly enhance learning outcomes, particularly among undergraduate students, and foster greater motivation. Furthermore, the results align with the bibliometric and altmetric analyses, which reflect a growing demand and interest from the educational, academic, and social communities—positioning this study within an emerging line of research with increasing relevance.

This study not only provides empirical evidence of the positive impact of gamification in heritage visits but also proposes a replicable methodological model for application in other museum, cultural, and educational contexts. By incorporating multiple indicators and combining academic and social metrics, it offers a solid foundation for future research aimed at promoting heritage through education, fostering teaching innovation, and advancing active methodologies beyond the traditional classroom settings.