INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHANGES IN EDUCATION
Research Article
Aug 22, 2025 1 1

Aligning Gamified Learning Experiences to Learning Outcomes

Kayleen Wood 1 * ,
Steve Drew 2
1 Centre for Support and Advancement of Learning and Teaching, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia2 Tasmanian Institute of Learning and Teaching, University of Tasmania, Australia* Corresponding Author
International Journal of Changes in Education, 2(3), 2025, 181-190, https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52023413
Publication date: Aug 22, 2025
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Gamified learning experiences use game mechanics and structures in curriculum and learning activities to engage students with content and scaffold toward intended learning outcomes. Using the domains of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning in the cognitive domain to explore the possible relationship between games and learning for application to university learning, links can be made between thinking skills and game types. This paper describes the development of the gamification alignment table and the gamification alignment model, how these were used to design a gamified learning experience (GLE) for the intended student learning outcomes at the first-year undergraduate level, and how they could be used at master’s level with different available in-game choices. The gamification alignment table allows learning designers to identify how the pedagogical lexicon matches to existing features of games and therefore can be easily transformed into GLEs. In the gamification alignment model, the six levels of knowledge in the cognitive domain, with pedagogical verbs used by educators and learning designers in planning and designing GLEs, are paired with game types involving different sorts of learning activities. The concept explored in the example GLE in this paper was the accounting and finance threshold concept of the time value of money. This research provides a further link between Bloom’s levels and the Australian Qualifications Framework levels and the comparable European Qualifications Framework levels. This novel mapping provides rationale for the linking of game design and learning outcomes and will be of interest to educational designers, as well as academics, with a learning focus.

KEYWORDS

gamified learning experience gamification alignment table gamification alignment model intended learning outcomes Australian Qualifications Framework

CITATION (APA)

Wood, K., & Drew, S. (2025). Aligning Gamified Learning Experiences to Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Changes in Education, 2(3), 181-190. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52023413
Harvard
Wood, K., and Drew, S. (2025). Aligning Gamified Learning Experiences to Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Changes in Education, 2(3), pp. 181-190. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52023413
Vancouver
Wood K, Drew S. Aligning Gamified Learning Experiences to Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Changes in Education. 2025;2(3):181-90. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52023413
AMA
Wood K, Drew S. Aligning Gamified Learning Experiences to Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Changes in Education. 2025;2(3), 181-190. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52023413
Chicago
Wood, Kayleen, and Steve Drew. "Aligning Gamified Learning Experiences to Learning Outcomes". International Journal of Changes in Education 2025 2 no. 3 (2025): 181-190. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52023413
MLA
Wood, Kayleen et al. "Aligning Gamified Learning Experiences to Learning Outcomes". International Journal of Changes in Education, vol. 2, no. 3, 2025, pp. 181-190. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52023413

REFERENCES

  1. Sousa, C., Neves, P., & Luz, F. (2023). Barriers and hindrances to the effective use of games in education: Systematic literature review and intervention strategies. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Games Based Learning, 17(1), 611–620. https://doi.org/10.34190/ecgbl.17.1.1472
  2. de Freitas, S., Uren, V., Kiili, K., Ninaus, M., Petridis, P., Lameras, P., ..., & Star, K. (2023). Efficacy of the 4F feedback model: A game-based assessment in university education. Information, 14(2), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14020099
  3. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., ..., & Wittrock, M. (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. USA: Pearson.
  4. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I cognitive domain. UK: Longman.
  5. Churches, A. (2007). Bloom’s digital taxonomy. Retrieved from: https://pdst.ie/sites/default/files/BloomDigitalTaxonomy-AndrewChurches.pdf
  6. Hartt, M., Hosseini, H., & Mostafapour, M. (2020). Game on: Exploring the effectiveness of game-based learning. Planning Practice & Research, 35(5), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2020.1778859
  7. Grabner-Hagan, M. M., & Kingsley, T. (2023). From badges to boss challenges: Gamification through need-supporting scaffolded design to instruct and motivate elementary learners. Computers and Education Open, 4, 100131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100131
  8. Hooper, J. (2017). Freeplay in video games. Master’s Thesis, Bond University.
  9. Lameras, P., Arnab, S., Dunwell, I., Stewart, C., Clarke, S., & Petridis, P. (2017). Essential features of serious games design in higher education: Linking learning attributes to game mechanics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 972–994. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12467
  10. Yıldırım, İ., & Şen, S. (2021). The effects of gamification on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(8), 1301–1318. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636089
  11. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. USA: D. C. Heath & Co.
  12. Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Jones, J., & Gigliotti, A. (2022). From learning design to teacher design practice: Researching how teachers design for technology integration. In R. Sharpe, S. Bennet, & T. Varga-Atikins (Eds.), Handbook of digital higher education (pp. 149–160). Edward Elgar Publishing.
  13. Oliveira, W., Hamari, J., Shi, L., Toda, A. M., Rodrigues, L., Palomino, P. T., & Isotani, S. (2023). Tailored gamification in education: A literature review and future agenda. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 373–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11122-4
  14. Alsawaier, R. S. (2019). Research trends in the study of gamification. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 36(5), 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-12-2017-0119
  15. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S., Smith, J. H., & Tosca, S. P. (2019). Understanding video games: The essential introduction (4th ed.). UK: Routledge.
  16. Marklund, B. B., Loewen-Col´on, J., & Saridaki, M. (2021).Teaching and games. Introduction to the special issue. gamevironments, (15), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.48783/gameviron.v15i15.144
  17. Sezgin, S., & Yüzer, T. V. (2022). Analysing adaptive gamification design principles for online courses. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(3), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1817559
  18. Noesgaard, S. S., & Ørngreen, R. (2015). The effectiveness of e-learning: An explorative and integrative review of the definitions, methodologies and factors that promote e-learning effectiveness. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(4), 278–290.
  19. Böckle, M., Novak, J., & Bick, M. (2020). Exploring gamified persuasive system design for energy saving. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(6), 1337–1356. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-02-2019-0032
  20. Morschheuser, B., & Hamari, J. (2019). The gamification of work: Lessons from crowdsourcing. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(2), 145–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492618790921
  21. Foster, A., & Shah, M. (2020). Principles for advancing gamebased learning in teacher education. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 36(2), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1695553
  22. Talbert, R. (2023). Flipped learning: A guide for higher education faculty. USA: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003444848
  23. Laurillard, D. (2020). The significance of constructivism as a distinctive pedagogy. In B. Tangney, J. R. Byrne, & C. Girvan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2020 Constructionism Conference (pp. 29–37). The University of Dublin.
  24. Australian Qualifications Framework Council. (2013). Australian Qualifications Framework (Second Edition January 2013). Retrieved from: https://www.aqf.edu.au/framework/australian-qualifications-framework
  25. European Commission: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, & Australian Government. (2016). Comparative analysis of the Australian Qualifications Framework and the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning: Joint technical report (Report No. CEB226E2). European Union. https://doi.org/10.2767/899976
  26. Henry, J., Li, F., & Arnab, S. (2024). On the pre-perception of gamification and game-based learning in higher education students: A systematic mapping study. Simulation & Gaming, 55(6), 985–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781241271082
  27. Toda, A. M., Klock, A. C., Oliveira, W., Palomino, P. T., Rodrigues, L., Shi, L., ..., & Cristea, A. I. (2019). Analysing gamification elements in educational environments using an existing gamification taxonomy. Smart Learning Environments, 6(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0106-1
  28. Thomas, D., & Seely Brown, J. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. USA: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.
  29. Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill Education.
  30. Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Education Technology Research and Development, 68, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
  31. Supangat, & Saringat, M. Z. B. (2022). A systematic literature review enhanced Felder Silverman learning style models (FSLSM). In Seventh International Conference on Informatics and Computing, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIC56845.2022.10006958
  32. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0054346
  33. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  34. Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2020). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. USA: Wiley.
  35. Wood, K. (2024). Creating a gamified learning experience for the threshold concept, the time value of money. Accounting Education, 33(6), 767–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2023.2255994
  36. Baer, S. (2019). Six game-based training models to achieve your performance objectives. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2018/07/26/six-game-based-training-models-to-achieve-your-performance-objectives/?sh=3b78a01d64d5
  37. Wood, K. (2019). Making a game of troublesome threshold concepts. In D. Ifenthaler & Y. J. Kim (Eds.), Game-based assessment revisited (pp. 301–325). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15569-8_15
  38. Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IMB SPSS statistics. USA: SAGE Publications.
  39. Parrino, R., Bates, T. W., Gillan, S. L., & Kidwell, D. S. (2021). Fundamentals of corporate finance (5th ed.). USA: John Wiley & Sons.
  40. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856
  41. Chen, C.-H., Shih, C.-C., & Law, V. (2020). The effects of competition in digital game-based learning (DGBL): A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1855–1873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09794-1
  42. Trinh, M. P., Chico, R. J., & Reed, R. M. (2024). How fun overcame fear: The gamification of a graduate-level statistics course. Journal of Management Education, 48(4), 735–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/10525629231181120

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.