Source: Triantafyllou, S. A., Georgiadis, C., & Sapounidis, T. (2025). Gamification in education and training: A literature review. International Review of Education, 71, 483–517.
Available at: SpringerLink | ResearchGate
Why This Study Caught Our Attention
Gamification has become a fixture in workplace learning—from onboarding portals to compliance refreshers and sales challenges. Yet beneath the buzz, the research shows a more complex picture.
Triantafyllou and colleagues reviewed 46 studies to see when gamification supports real learning and when it merely adds decoration. Their conclusions echo what many L&D leaders already suspect: gamification can work, but only when design and context align.
-
Design Alignment Is Everything
Most studies found that gamification boosts participation, but not always comprehension. The difference lies in how game mechanics are connected to the learning goal.
Points and badges catch attention but rarely build skill. Learning improves only when those mechanics reinforce the reasoning process itself—when decisions, trade-offs, or patterns within the "game" mirror the thinking demanded by the real job.
In practice: Good design starts with clarity of purpose. The game element should serve the learning objective, not compete with it.
-
Storyline and Feedback Drive Meaning
Learners stay engaged when they can see how their actions affect outcomes. The strongest results in the review came from programs with visible feedback loops and narrative progression—where each choice changed what happened next.
It's not the scoreboard that sustains motivation; it's the unfolding story. When people understand why a result occurred, they form mental models that last.
In practice: Design for reflection, not reaction. Every move should produce feedback that prompts learners to think, "What just happened, and why?"
-
Context and Audience Matter More Than Mechanics
Gamification isn't universal. Adult learners bring professional identity and skepticism into every learning experience. Many resist play that feels artificial or irrelevant.
The review found that relevance and autonomy consistently outweighed visual novelty. A game can thrive in one setting and fail in another simply because the context doesn't fit the audience's goals or tone of work.
In practice: Role relevance beats entertainment. When activities feel connected to daily decisions, participation becomes authentic rather than performative.
-
Calibrated Challenge Keeps Engagement Real
Programs with adaptive difficulty—where tasks evolved as learners improved—generated the highest sustained motivation. Flat or repetitive structures lost energy quickly.
The best results came when the challenge stretched but didn't overwhelm, creating a sense of progress and mastery over time.
In practice: Build a curve, not a cliff. Learning momentum comes from gradual complexity, not from static repetition.
The Gaps the Research Still Shows
Across the 46 studies, two limitations appeared again and again:
- Implementation quality — Many programs used gamification as decoration rather than instructional design.
- Long-term measurement — Few tracked what participants remembered or applied months later.
For learning teams, that’s a reminder that execution and follow-up matter as much as creativity. The design is only as strong as the consistency with which it’s applied and the duration over which it’s reinforced.
Our Take
These findings confirm what many facilitators have long observed: learners respond not to play itself, but to purposeful interaction. When gamified learning mirrors real-world thinking—decision, consequence, reflection—engagement becomes genuine and understanding deepens.
That’s why game-based structures can be powerful tools for adult learning when built on solid instructional foundations. Gamification succeeds when it respects the learner’s intelligence, invites exploration, and connects to the work they actually do.
