Gamification in Education: What the Research Says and What Works in Class

Gamification in education is one of the few topics where enthusiasm and scepticism meet in the same staff room. Some teachers see points and badges as a way to bring back the joy of learning; others see yet another quiz with fireworks. I build custom educational games, so I have a stake in the answer. That is why this article is not built on my impressions but on two large meta-analyses I read in full, and on what they mean for a lesson, a textbook or a game brief.

What is gamification and how is it different from an educational game?

The most cited definition (Deterding et al., 2011, also quoted by the meta-analysis below) says gamification is "the use of game design elements in non-game contexts". The lesson stays a lesson; you add points, badges, levels, team competition or a story frame.

An educational game is something else: the whole activity is a game and the subject matter lives in its mechanics. In my demo Sentence repair workshop, a student does not score points for a right answer in a test. They repair a sentence by putting the right cog into a machine (has or have). Pick the wrong one and the machine jams.

The difference matters because research measures the two approaches separately. That is why I cite two different meta-analyses below: one on gamification, one on digital games.

What does research say about gamification?

Michael Sailer and Lisa Homner from LMU Munich summarised, in Educational Psychology Review (2020, vol. 32, pp. 77–112), experimental and quasi-experimental studies comparing gamified teaching with teaching without game elements. The results:

The authors themselves call all three effects small and statistically significant. Hedges' g expresses by how many standard deviations the gamified group outperforms the group without gamification.

Three things from this study worth remembering if you teach or publish:

• The effect on knowledge holds even in stricter studies. For motivation and behaviour it was not stable in studies with higher methodological rigour: for those two outcomes, quasi-experimental studies (without random assignment) came out significantly better than experimental ones.
• Story and team competition help. Game fiction and combining competition with collaboration were particularly effective for behavioural outcomes, and part of the analysis suggested the same for motivation.
• One afternoon of points is not enough. For motivation, interventions lasting one day or less were not significant, while interventions lasting from one month to half a year showed a medium effect.

The authors also point out that the number of studies was small, especially for behaviour, and that what exactly makes gamification successful is still somewhat unresolved. Turning this into a guaranteed recipe would be dishonest.

What does research say about digital educational games?

Douglas Clark, Emily Tanner-Smith and Stephen Killingsworth published a meta-analysis of 69 study samples on digital games in education in Review of Educational Research (2016, vol. 86, pp. 79–122). Key findings:

• Games versus teaching without a game: g = 0.33 (57 studies). Games improved learning.
• Repeated play is key: games played over multiple sessions had g = 0.44; single-session games had g = 0.08, which was not significantly different from teaching without a game.
• Support and feedback: games with enhanced scaffolding (hints, explanations, guidance) did better than their basic versions, g = 0.41. Teacher scaffolding showed g = 0.58, but from only 4 studies.
• Better design pays off: improved versions of games beat the basic versions of the same games, g = 0.34 (20 studies).

The practical takeaway: an educational game is not a one-off treat for the last lesson before the holidays. It works when students come back to it and when it tells them why an answer was wrong.

What does this mean for a lesson?

When I put the two studies side by side and add what I see while designing games, I end up with five rules:

1. One clear learning goal. "Fill in has/have to match the subject" can be played and assessed. "Practise English" cannot.
2. Play repeatedly, not once. A 5-minute game the class returns to across five lessons has a better chance, according to Clark et al., than one full lesson of play.
3. Explain the mistake. "Wrong" is not enough. The game should show why it is has, not have.
4. Teams that compete and collaborate. In Class rocket, two teams at one board each build their own rocket, so students collaborate within a team and compete between teams. This is exactly the combination Sailer and Homner found effective.
5. A story instead of bare points. Points, badges and leaderboards are the cheapest elements. Game fiction (a rocket that launches, a machine that prints the repaired sentence) gives points meaning.

Why gamification is on the agenda in Czech schools

Under the Czech framework curriculum for basic education revised in 2021, digital competence becomes "another key competence that can be developed in all subjects", as the Czech National Pedagogical Institute puts it. The institute gives the timeline: from 1 September 2023 all primary schools must teach by it at the first stage, from 1 September 2024 at the second stage too, and from 1 September 2025 grammar schools (under the 2021 curriculum) and vocational secondary schools (under the 2023 curriculum).

Digital competence does not mean every lesson needs a game. But a school looking for ways to bring digital tools into ordinary subjects has, in a well-designed short game, one option, backed by research that says under which conditions it helps.

Gamification, a template, or a custom game?

For a quick vocabulary review, a ready-made quiz template is often enough. A custom game makes sense when:

• it should be part of a textbook or product and carry its look,
• the subject needs its own mechanic, not just multiple choice (building a sentence, a lab procedure, decisions in a company),
• it should run without student accounts and without collecting their data.

Three of my demos where the mechanic itself carries the subject:

• Sentence Repair Workshop: the right cog fixes the grammar, the wrong one jams.
• Electric circuit: three bulbs in series glow dimly, in parallel brightly, and a burnt-out bulb in the series switches off the whole circuit.
• Titration: a lab technician adds alkali to an acid drop by drop, the pH is calculated in code and an overshot drop means a new attempt.

These are demos; I have not tested them in a classroom yet.

For projects like that I make custom educational games for publishers, schools and edtech: short games with original artwork and one learning goal. If you need a set of exercises in H5P or SCORM for Moodle instead, see interactive exercises for schools. How to brief such a game so it fits both the goal and the budget is covered in Custom educational game: how to brief it. You can browse all game demos by stage, subject and device on the Educational games page.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does gamification in education work?

According to the meta-analysis by Sailer and Homner (2020), gamification has a small positive effect on knowledge (g = 0.49), motivation (g = 0.36) and behaviour (g = 0.25). The effect on knowledge is the most reliable; motivation and behaviour results vary in stricter studies. It depends on how it is designed and how long it is used.

What is the difference between gamification and an educational game?

Gamification adds game elements (points, badges, teams, a story) to ordinary teaching. An educational game is a game throughout and the subject matter is part of its mechanics, for example a student repairs a sentence by choosing the right word instead of answering a test.

Is playing an educational game once enough?

Probably not. In the meta-analysis by Clark et al. (2016), games played over multiple sessions had an effect of g = 0.44, while single-session games had g = 0.08, which was not significantly different from teaching without a game. Research supports a short game the class keeps coming back to.

Are points and leaderboards a good idea?

On their own they are not a guaranteed recipe; research has not fully resolved what makes gamification succeed. Game fiction and teams that compete and collaborate at the same time did better. Individual leaderboards can discourage weaker students; team ones are safer.

Is gamification suitable for secondary schools and universities?

It can be. The meta-analysis by Sailer and Homner includes studies from schools and from higher education, and according to the authors most studies in earlier reviews came from higher education. For older students, simulations and decision scenarios make the most sense, such as a lab procedure or running a company. The conditions are the same: a clear goal, repetition and explained feedback.

Sources and links

• Sailer, M., Homner, L. (2020). The Gamification of Learning: a Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 77–112, full text CC BY 4.0, read 23 October 2026
• Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital Games, Design, and Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122, read 23 October 2026
• Czech National Pedagogical Institute: How to change schools for the digital world? (infographic in Czech, 2025), read 23 October 2026