Introduction

At the present time, there is an educational trend which defends the incorporation of active methodologies in the classroom (Muntaner et al., 2020). One innovation which is progressively acquiring greater relevance in the context of education is gamification due to the benefits which it can contribute in terms of pupils’ motivation, participation, involvement, interest and learning (Area and González, 2015; Lee and Hammer, 2011; Prieto, 2020).

One of the main areas of knowledge which presents educational problems relating to demotivation, disinterest and superficial learning on the part of pupils is the subject of history (Liceras, 2016; Llopis and Balaguer, 2016; Sanz et al., 2017; Van Straaten et al., 2018; Zhao and Hoge, 2005). Furthermore, history education research has, for many decades, defended a change in the way the subject is taught with the objective of developing historical thinking among learners (Domínguez, 2015; Metzger and Harris, 2018; Seixas and Morton, 2013; VanSledright, 2014).

Many countries have incorporated historical thinking into their curriculums, textbooks and teaching methodology (Domínguez, 2015). However, this is not the case of Spain where this philosophy is practically absent from the curriculum, textbooks and the classroom (Gómez, Solé et al., 2020; Martínez-Hita, 2019; Martínez-Hita and Gómez, 2016, 2018).

Gamification can be a tool to contribute towards solving these problems and enabling the transformation of the teaching and learning process of history, thereby achieving an improvement in pupils’ learning (Area and González, 2015; De Freitas, 2018; Goethe, 2019; Ortiz-Colón et al., 2018; Prieto, 2020). However, prior research carried out on the effects of gamification has normally focused on secondary and higher education (Gómez-Carrasco et al., 2020; Kocakoyun and Ozdamli, 2018; Lozada-Ávila and Betancur-Gómez, 2017; Prieto, 2020; Torres-Toukoumidis et al., 2018; Zatarain, 2018), with few studies being carried out in the area of primary education and the relationship between gamification and historical thinking.

Bearing this research deficiency in mind, the aim of this quasi-experimental study is to analyse the academic performance of primary education pupils in Spain following the implementation of a gamified intervention programme in the classroom based on historical thinking in order to compare it with a control group following a traditional methodology based on the use of the textbook as the main resource.

Gamification

Gamification is a concept which has aroused a great deal of interest and gained in popularity over recent years (Hamari et al., 2014; Kocakoyun and Ozdamli, 2018). It has been applied in a wide range of contexts and areas, such as education, marketing, health and sustainability, among others (Deterding et al., 2011; Kocakoyun and Ozdamli, 2018; Robson et al., 2015). The most widely accepted definition of the term is that which considers that “Gamification is the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding et al., 2011, p. 10).

Focusing on the context of education, gamification consists of applying elements which normally form part of games to the educational process in order to improve pupils’ learning experience, motivation, attention and involvement (Özdener, 2018; Robson et al., 2015). This definition could be simplified to state that gamification consists of introducing the dynamics and mechanics of games into the classroom (Rivero, 2017). However, the concept of gamification is commonly confused with others, such as the use of serious games in the classroom, game-based learning and learning by making games (Deterding et al., 2011; Marczewski, 2015; Nousiainen et al., 2018).

Serious games are those whose main purpose is educational or formative and not entertainment. In contrast, the main objective of games which are not considered to be serious is to have fun. Game-based learning consists of the use of games, be they traditional or digital, in the context of education in order to achieve a learning objective. On the other hand, learning by making games involves pupils understanding specific contents by designing and making a game.

However, gamification is not based on the use of games, but rather on the use of the design and elements of games, the main purposes of which are not entertainment, but to make a non-recreational experience more attractive and to increase the level of motivation and involvement of the participants (Karatas, 2014).

Elements of gamification

The game elements which make it possible to create a gamified experience can be classified into different categories according to different authors (Hunicke et al., 2004; Werbach and Hunter, 2012).

Gamification, according to the MDA framework (Hunicke et al., 2004), is built upon the following three principal elements: mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics.

Mechanics refers to the rules of the game and to the PBL (Points, Badges and Leaderboards) system. Along with other elements, such as the use of avatars, they make it possible to increase the extrinsic motivation of pupils and favour their involvement in the learning process.

The dynamics are related to the behaviour or the way in which the participants act, and the situations created when applying the mechanics. This is a more abstract aspect than the mechanics which is crystallised in missions or challenges which enable pupils to be aware of their progress thanks to the feedback received and their evolution in the achievement of a certain status or level. This leads to a sensation of individual progress and maintains the pupils’ interest throughout the whole process.

Last of all, aesthetics refers to the emotional and sensorial response of the participants. It is essential, therefore, that the experience should be attractive and the use of a narrative as a central theme bringing together all of the missions or challenges is of prime importance. This narrative serves as a basis and framework for the whole learning pathway and must attract the attention of the participants. Thus, it is necessary to bear in mind the context in the gamification design.

Werbach and Hunter (2012) classified the elements of gamification into three categories: dynamics, mechanics and components.

The dynamics are the most general aspects of gamification, such as the narrative, emotions, limitations and progression. The mechanics are the basic components which stimulate participation and the development of the activity, such as the challenges, rewards, feedback, competition and cooperation. The components are the specific elements of the game, such as avatars, insignias, points, classification tables, levels, etc. Thus, in the latter element, the aforementioned PBL system is included.

Gamification in education

The application of these elements in the context of education contributes towards creating an immersive learning experience which is similar to a game; an experience in which pupils are completely immersed in the narrative of the gamification and are in a state of concentration aimed at completing the missions (Jaramillo and Castellón, 2012). This is related with the concept of flow proposed by Csikszentmihalyi, which is defined as the mental state of complete immersion in the task being carried out in which the individual is fully involved and entertained (Teixes, 2014). Gamification, therefore, makes it possible to transform learning into an immersive experience which contributes to a greater degree of motivation, interest, commitment and, even, performance among pupils due to the fact that they find themselves in the aforementioned state of flow (Ortiz-Colón et al., 2018; Prieto, 2020).

This does not mean that classes are transformed into a game, as the specific objective of gamification is learning from a motivating point of view (Kapp, 2012). In such a way, gamification facilitates the internalisation of knowledge and the acquisition of learning in a more entertaining way, as the pupils have an interest in learning in order to overcome the challenges proposed (De Freitas, 2018; Goethe, 2019; Prieto, 2020). Furthermore, the contents will be significant for the pupils as they are emotionally involved (Barton, 2008).

However, some studies have indicated that gamification does not imply a significant improvement in learning and may even have a negative effect on pupils’ motivation and performance (Domínguez et al., 2013; Hanus and Fox, 2015; Hew et al., 2016; Mekler et al., 2017).

Nevertheless, the majority of prior research carried out shows the benefits of introducing this educational innovation in the classroom, which are reflected in pupils’ learning, motivation and participation, among other aspects (Area and González, 2015; Chapman and Rich, 2018; Da Rocha-Seixas et al., 2016; Hamari et al., 2014; Kocakoyun and Ozdamli, 2018; Lozada-Ávila and Betancur-Gómez, 2017; Majuri et al., 2018; Ortiz-Colón et al., 2018; Özdener, 2018; Prieto, 2020; Subhash and Cudney, 2018; Torres-Toukoumidis et al., 2018; Yildirim, 2017).

These benefits of the application of gamification in the classroom explain its growing relevance in the field of education, as it offers a solution to some of today’s educational problems, such as the lack of motivation and interest among pupils in the teaching and learning process (Area and González, 2015; Lee and Hammer, 2011; Ortiz-Colón et al., 2018).

Gamification and history

One of the main areas of knowledge in which such problems are identified is in the teaching of history, due to the fact that it is frequently considered by pupils to be boring and without usefulness or interest (Liceras, 2016; Llopis and Balaguer, 2016; Sanz et al., 2017; Van Straaten et al., 2018; Zhao and Hoge, 2005).

Learners state that one of the main reasons for this negative consideration of history is the teaching approach which is applied in the classroom, showing a preference for active and participatory methodologies (Biddulph and Adey, 2002; Harris and Haydn, 2006; Harris and Reynolds, 2014).

Thus, a curricular design based on the principles of gamification could contribute towards transforming the teaching and learning process into something interesting for pupils and, at the same time, improving learning and the acquisition of skills (Area and González, 2015; Ortiz-Colón et al., 2018).

In addition, gamification becomes a means which facilitates Project-based Learning (Ortiz-Colón et al., 2018). Along with other active learning methods, such as cooperative techniques, it allows for the active participation of pupils in the construction of their own learning. This idea is defended by the constructivist theory, the principles of which are coherent with empirical research in the field of history education (Van Straaten et al., 2018).

In this way, and in line with the current educational tendency relating to the incorporation of active methodologies in the classroom (Muntaner et al., 2020), the aim is to replace the traditional method of teaching, based on the transmission of historical contents which are to be memorised, with a teaching method based on the development of historical thinking among pupils. This implies training in problem-solving, critical thinking and the capacity for analysis, which are more complex cognitive skills related with the competences (Martínez-Hita and Gómez, 2018; Sáiz, 2013, 2015), thereby reducing the prominence of memorisation and the repetition of concepts, dates and facts.

Therefore, making use of active methodologies, such as gamification, could provide a triple response. First of all, following the educational recommendations which seek integral training in pupils’ competences. Secondly, increasing interest in history. And, finally, the formation of historical thinking.

Historical thinking

In accordance with the cognitive model of the learning of history and its epistemology, history education research advocates a teaching model based on the development of historical thinking among learners (Metzger and Harris, 2018; Seixas and Morton, 2013; VanSledright, 2014).

Historical thinking is the union of certain first-order concepts, such as dates, facts and concepts, with other second-order concepts, such as the handling of historical sources, perspective and the analysis of causes and consequences or changes and continuities. In short, it consists of knowledge of the research methods of history which extend beyond the mere repetitive and conceptual learning of the subject (Domínguez, 2015; Lee, 2005; Seixas and Morton, 2013; VanSledright, 2011).

This teaching approach based on historical thinking is closely related with the guidelines established by educational institutions for teaching the achievement of competences, as, in the same way as with the competences, not only the acquisition of knowledge (knowing what) is sought, analogous to first-order concepts, but also the development of complex skills and functional learning (knowing how), similar to second-order concepts (López-Facal et al., 2017; Martínez-Hita and Gómez, 2018).

The formation of historical thinking among pupils requires a methodological change which fosters the active participation of learners in the construction of their own historical knowledge. In order to achieve this, use can be made of different strategies, among which gamification stands out (Gómez et al., 2018).

In order to achieve an improvement in the teaching of history, it is also of great importance that teachers possess theoretical knowledge of the formation of historical thinking and of the most appropriate teaching methods and strategies for its development. In this regard, teacher training becomes a fundamental aspect for this improvement (Miralles, Gómez, Arias, et al., 2019; Miralles, Gómez, 2019; Rodríguez-Medina et al., 2020; Gómez, Chaparro et al., 2020).

Along with teacher training, there are other aspects which make it difficult to bring about a change in the teaching of history, leading to a continuation of traditional methodologies in which the pupil occupies a passive role, and which engender the consideration of historical knowledge as being of little use and uninteresting. Among these aspects are education legislation, in which, in the case of Spain, conceptual content is predominant (Martínez-Hita, 2019; Martínez-Hita and Gómez, 2016), and the use of the textbook as the main educational resource, transmitting the idea of history as a linear narrative which pupils must memorise, without developing more complex cognitive capacities and in which historical thinking is absent (Martínez-Hita and Gómez, 2018).

However, in the 1970s, proposals began to emerge encouraging the initiation of pupils in the historical research method. In other words, they were encouraged to learn to think historically. These proposals have been developed in different countries and in different educational stages, particularly in English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia (Cooper, 2012; Levstik and Barton, 2008; Monte-Sano et al., 2015; Wineburg et al., 2013). In the case of Spain, these international proposals have been incorporated into history education research, but this transfer is not so evident, as has been mentioned previously, in the curriculum, in textbooks or in the classroom (Martínez-Hita, 2019; Martínez-Hita and Gómez, 2016, 2018).

In addition, the majority of innovative experiments in the teaching of history, such as the application of gamification in general, have mainly been carried out in secondary and higher education, with primary education receiving little attention, as also occurs in the case of the joint analysis of gamification and historical thinking (Dichev and Dicheva, 2017; Dicheva et al., 2015; Gómez-Carrasco et al., 2020; Kocakoyun and Ozdamli, 2018; Lozada-Ávila and Betancur-Gómez, 2017; Prieto, 2020; Torres-Toukoumidis et al., 2018; Zatarain, 2018).

Previous studies have highlighted the need to analyse the methods and strategies of history teaching and the effects of gamification in different levels of education (Bicen and Kocakoyun, 2018; Buckley et al., 2017; Rodríguez-Medina et al., 2020). Herein lies the significance of this study, which aims to analyse the results of the implementation of a gamified intervention programme based on the approach of historical thinking and on active and inclusive methods in a 4th year primary education class in Spain, with the aim of verifying its effect on the pupils’ learning.

Objectives

The main objective of this research was to analyse the learning outcomes of 4th year primary pupils following the implementation of a gamified project in the classroom for the teaching of historical thinking, comparing the results with a control group which followed a traditional methodology for the teaching of the same contents.

This general objective was defined in the following three specific objectives:

  • SO1: To compare the learning outcomes of the experimental group in the posttest with those obtained in the pretest.

  • SO2: To compare the learning outcomes of the control group in the posttest with those obtained in the pretest.

  • SO3: To compare the learning outcomes of the control group and the experimental group in the pretest and in the posttest.

Method

Participants

This study was carried out with two groups of 4th year primary pupils in a state-run school in the Region of Murcia (Spain) during the 2017/2018 academic year. The context and socioeconomic and cultural level of the school and the families is characterised as low, with a high percentage of immigrants and pupils of gypsy ethnicity.

The selection of the groups and participants was non-probabilistic and incidental in nature, as the sample was selected in accordance with accessibility to the subjects and suitability to the objectives of the research (Bisquerra, 2014). Furthermore, the participants remained in their class groups, thus maintaining their natural groups. The experimental group was made up of 23 children, whereas the control group consisted of 21 pupils. Thus, the total number of participants in this research was 44 people ranging from 9 to 10 years of age.

Regarding the ethical issues, a informed consent was obtained from their legal guardians and the research project received the approval of the University of Murcia’s Research Ethics Commission.

Research design

This research is framed within the methodology of programme evaluation and follows the CIPP model (Guba and Stufflebeam, 1970; Latorre et al., 2003), which is the acronym for four types of evaluation: context, input, process and product. The results presented in this paper correspond to the evaluation of the product, that is to say, the analysis and evaluation of the results of the application of the programme in order to determine whether its objectives were achieved.

In order to achieve this, a quasi-experimental design was followed with an experimental group and a control group and the use of a pretest and posttest.

Data collection tool

The data collection tool employed was a mixed pupil performance test elaborated ad hoc for the evaluation of the learning standards established in the educational curriculum (CARM, 2014) and programmed in the subject of social sciences for the third term of the 4th year of primary education.

The aforementioned performance test was made up of 11 items with different types of response, such as multiple choice, open response or simple response (see Table 1). The same test was used in the pretest and in the posttest. These items were evaluated using a scale of 0–4, in which each value was assigned an achievement indicator.

Table 1 Items that comprised the performance test and their respective historical concepts.
Full size table

The tool was validated by way of the expert judgement technique according to the criteria of relevance, clarity, coherence and adequacy for each item. The analysis of its psychometric characteristics demonstrated that it possessed content validity (Escobar-Pérez and Cuervo-Martínez, 2008) with a moderate degree of agreement among the judges (Landis and Koch, 1977) (see Table 2), and an extremely high degree of internal consistency according to Bisquerra (1992) and was considered excellent according to the criteria of George and Mallery (2003), as the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient obtained a value of 0.937.This indicated that the pupils’ responses to the items consistently reflected the construct which was being measured, in other words, their knowledge regarding history.

Table 2 Kendall’s w test. coefficient of concordance.
Full size table

Procedure

This research was carried out in accordance with the CIPP model: context, input, process and product (Guba and Stufflebeam, 1970).

First of all, prior to the implementation of the intervention programme in the classroom, the context was evaluated in order to detect necessities and to identify problems which required solutions. The analysis of the Spanish curriculum and textbooks revealed the absence of historical thinking in primary education (Martínez-Hita and Gómez, 2018; Martínez-Hita, 2019).

Subsequently, the gamified project for learning about pre-history and ancient history was designed, according to the programme of the subject of social sciences in the 4th year of primary education and in coherence with the legislation in force and its curricular elements: contents, assessment criteria and learning standards (CARM, 2014). The design of the gamified project was evaluated and validated by the method of expert judgement (Martínez-Hita and Miralles, 2020) as part of the evaluation phase of the input.

Then, during the third term of the 2017/2018 academic year, the gamified project based on active and inclusive methodologies was implemented along with a historical thinking approach in the class of the experimental group. On the other hand, the control group followed a traditional methodology based on the use of the textbook for the teaching of the same contents relating to pre-history and ancient history.

The pretest was administered to the pupils of both groups before initiating the educational intervention. Upon completion of the programme, the posttest, which was the same tool as in the pretest phase, was administered in order to evaluate the pupils’ learning and the intervention programme as a whole.

As far as the gamified project designed is concerned, it included different tools and game elements, such as a narrative which was the common thread in all of the proposed missions, avatars, challenges, points, badges, rewards and levels of achievement. Furthermore, the design of the gamified project was based on the historical thinking skills and on the introduction of active and inclusive methodologies, along with cooperative work (Martínez-Hita and Miralles, 2020).

Data analysis

The data were coded and analysed using the SPSS v.24 statistical programme. For the coding and scoring of the pretest and posttest responses, a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 to 4, was employed, assigning a particular achievement indicator to each value for each of the items.

Descriptive statistical analyses were carried out and nonparametric tests were applied for intergroup and intragroup comparison as the verification of the normal distribution of the statistics (Shapiro–Wilk) indicated a non-normal distribution (p < 0.05).

The Mann–Whitney U test was performed in order to make a comparison between the control group and the experimental group and, for the intragroup comparison, the Wilcoxon W test was employed. Statistical significance was established with a p-value ≤ 0.05.

The effect size was also calculated using the Rosenthal R test (Rosenthal, 1991) in order to determine the size of the differences in the intergroup and intragroup comparisons.

Results

The results are presented in accordance with the specific objectives of the research.

SO1: To compare the learning outcomes of the experimental group in the posttest with those obtained in the pretest

Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the experimental group relating to the 11 items making up the pretest and posttest. It can be observed that all of them obtained an extremely low score, with the exception of item number 6, in the pretest. However, in the posttest, an increase in the scores of all the items above the mean value of the evaluation scale, that is, higher than two, can be observed, given that the maximum score it was possible to obtain in each of the items was 4.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the experimental group in the pretest and posttest.
Full size table

For the comparison between the pretest and the posttest in the experimental group, the Wilcoxon W test was performed, which showed that there were significant differences in all of the items (p < 0.05) (see Table 4). The learning outcomes obtained by the experimental group in the posttest were greater than those of the pretest, as seen in Table 3. These differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05), with a moderate effect size (ES) in all of the items, with the exception of item 6, which is less according to Cohen’s (1988) criteria.

Table 4 Wilcoxona W test of the posttest/pretest of the experimental group with the corresponding effect size.
Full size table

SO2: To compare the learning outcomes of the control group in the posttest with those obtained in the pretest

Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics of the control group in the pretest and posttest for each of the items. It can be seen that the scores obtained in the posttest were low, as only three of the items (numbers 3, 6 and 9) obtained a score higher than the mean value on the evaluation scale.

Table 5 Descriptive statistics of the control group in the pretest and posttest.
Full size table

The Wilcoxon W test demonstrated that the posttest scores of the control group improved significantly with regard to the pretest in items 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 (p < 0.05) (see Table 6), although the effect size (ES) and the size of these differences were small (Cohen, 1988).

Table 6 Wilcoxona W tests of the posttest/pretest of the control group with their respective effect sizes.
Full size table

A significant difference can also be observed in item 5 (p < 0.05), although in this case it is a worsening in the results obtained in the posttest with regard to the pretest.

SO3: To compare the learning outcomes of the control group and the experimental group in the pretest and in the posttest

Before comparing the learning outcomes in the posttest between the experimental and the control group, it was necessary to verify that there were no prior differences between the two groups.

Table 7 shows that there were no statistically significant differences between the control group and the experimental group before the educational intervention in the classroom (p > 0.05), with the exception of item 10 in which the control group obtained higher scores.

Table 7 Mann–Whitney U test of the pretest between the control group and the experimental group.
Full size table

Conversely, as can be observed in Table 8, statistically significant differences were found in almost all of the items when comparing the learning outcomes of the control group and the experimental group in the posttest (p < 0.05). The experimental group obtained statistically higher scores than the control group, with a mainly moderate effect size, as its values were higher than or extremely close to 0.50 (Cohen, 1988).

Table 8 Mann–Whitney U test of the posttest between the control group and the experimental group with their respective effect sizes.
Full size table

Discussion and conclusions

The results showed that the experimental group, following an educational intervention employing a gamified project based on historical thinking, improved its learning outcomes significantly with regard to the pretest in all of the items which made up the performance test, with a moderate effect size. Furthermore, all of the items obtained scores higher than the mean value of the evaluation scale of the responses.

On the other hand, the control group, which followed a traditional methodology, also significantly improved its learning outcomes with regard to the pretest in more than half of the items. However, these differences were mainly small in accordance with Cohen (1988). In addition, in the control group, only the average of the score of three items of the posttest was higher than the mean value of the evaluation scale. That is to say, the rest reflected insufficient learning.

As far as the comparison between the experimental group and the control group is concerned, the results showed that the academic performance of the children who participated in the gamified project was significantly higher than that of the control group. All of the items obtained higher scores in the experimental group, with the differences proving to be statistically significant in practically all of them, with the exception of item 6, and with a moderate effect size in the majority of them.

These results are coherent with those presented in prior research highlighting the benefits of the introduction of gamification in the classroom on pupils’ learning, among other aspects such as motivation and participation (Area and González, 2015; Chapman and Rich, 2018; Da Rocha-Seixas et al., 2016; De Freitas, 2018; Goethe, 2019; Hamari et al., 2014; Kocakoyun and Ozdamli, 2018; Lozada-Ávila and Betancur-Gómez, 2017; Majuri et al., 2018; Ortiz-Colón et al., 2018; Özdener, 2018; Prieto, 2020; Subhash and Cudney, 2018; Torres-Toukoumidis et al., 2018; Yildirim, 2017).

Thus, it has been proved that the use of new teaching methodologies and strategies, such as gamification, can become a tool for the improvement of history education compared to traditional methodologies based on conceptual and repetitive learning (Gómez et al., 2018; Rodríguez-Medina et al., 2020; VanSledright, 2014).

Furthermore, gamification makes it possible to integrate other active learning methods, such as project-based learning and cooperative techniques (Ortiz-Colón et al., 2018). This is in line with current trends in education (Muntaner et al., 2020) and the recommendations made from educational curriculums which have the aim of educating pupils integrally in terms of competencies, in the development of the capacity to solve problems, being autonomous and thinking critically towards the mere memorisation and repetition of contents.

However, this is not only in line with current trends, but also with research on history education which advocates constructivist learning and a teaching approach based on historical thinking (Metzger and Harris, 2018; Seixas and Morton, 2013; VanSledright, 2014; Van Straaten et al., 2018).

Therefore, this research has proved that the implementation of a gamified project based on historical thinking in a 4th year primary education class in Spain made it possible to obtain significantly higher learning outcomes among the participants than those obtained by pupils following a more traditional methodology based on the use of the textbook. This is also coherent with the current general education recommendations and the principles defended from the field of history education research in particular.

This study may serve as a reference point in order to promote and foster the implementation of gamification in the primary classroom and active learning methods for the development of historical thinking given the positive results obtained. Furthermore, the results of this research are also relevant for guiding teacher training programmes towards an epistemological and methodological change.

However, a series of limitations have been identified, such as the size of the sample, the absence of external assessors or more assessors to enable a triangulation of the data. Therefore, it is suggested that this line of research be continued, increasing the number of participants, widening the levels of education analysed, and comparing gamification with other active learning methodologies in order to be able to corroborate the results obtained in the present study.