The effects of a gamified project based on historical thinking on the academic performance of primary school children

The study addresses persistent problems in history education, including student demotivation, disinterest, and superficial, memorization-heavy learning. Contemporary research in history education advocates shifting toward developing historical thinking, integrating first-order knowledge (dates, facts, concepts) with second-order concepts (use of sources, perspective, causation, continuity and change). Gamification has gained traction as an active methodology that can enhance motivation, engagement, and learning. However, most empirical work on gamification focuses on secondary and higher education, with limited evidence in primary settings and particularly on historical thinking. The purpose of this study is to examine whether implementing a gamified, historical-thinking-based project in a 4th year primary classroom in Spain improves academic performance compared to a control group taught with traditional, textbook-centered methods. The study’s importance lies in addressing a research gap at the primary level and informing methodological change toward active, competence-oriented history teaching.

The paper reviews definitions and frameworks of gamification, notably Deterding et al.'s definition (use of game design elements in non-game contexts) and the MDA framework (mechanics, dynamics, aesthetics). It distinguishes gamification from serious games, game-based learning, and learning by making games. Elements such as points, badges, leaderboards, avatars, challenges, feedback, narrative, and progression are highlighted (Hunicke et al., Werbach and Hunter). In education, gamification can foster immersion and flow, increasing motivation, engagement, and potentially performance, though mixed findings exist with some studies showing null or negative effects. The review connects gamification with project-based and cooperative learning within constructivist approaches. In history education, students often perceive the subject as boring or irrelevant, with traditional approaches emphasizing memorization. Research promotes teaching for historical thinking, aligning with competence-based curricula. Internationally, historical thinking has been integrated more robustly than in Spain, where it remains underrepresented. Prior innovations and studies on gamification have centered on secondary/higher education, underscoring the need for primary-level research linking gamification and historical thinking.

Design: Programme evaluation using the CIPP model (context, input, process, product), reporting product (outcomes). Quasi-experimental design with experimental and control groups, pretest–posttest. Participants: Two intact 4th year primary classes at a state-run school in the Region of Murcia (Spain) during 2017/2018; low socioeconomic/cultural context with high proportion of immigrant and gypsy students. Non-probabilistic incidental sampling. Experimental group n=23; Control group n=21; ages 9–10. Ethical approval obtained; informed consent from guardians. Intervention: Experimental group received a gamified project during the third term on Prehistory and Ancient History, grounded in historical thinking and active/inclusive methodologies with cooperative work. Game elements included overarching narrative linking missions, avatars, challenges, points, badges, rewards, and levels. Control group covered the same content via traditional textbook-based instruction. Instrument: An ad hoc mixed performance test aligned with 4th-grade Social Sciences curriculum standards (CARM, 2014). Eleven items spanning multiple-choice, open, and simple responses, covering concepts such as definition of history, construction of historical knowledge, historian’s task, sources/evidence, chronology, evidence identification, historical significance, continuity and change, historical perspective (living in different periods), and evidence via map interpretation. Scoring on 0–4 scale with defined achievement indicators. Same test used for pretest and posttest. Validation and reliability: Expert judgment assessed relevance, clarity, coherence, adequacy (Kendall’s W: 0.530–0.573, p≤0.001), evidencing content validity. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha=0.937). Procedure: Context evaluation confirmed lack of historical thinking in primary curricula/textbooks. The gamified project was designed and validated by experts (input). Implementation occurred for the experimental group; control maintained traditional methods. Pretest administered prior to instruction; posttest after completion. Data analysis: Responses coded 0–4. Descriptive statistics computed. Normality checked via Shapiro–Wilk (non-normal, p<0.05). Nonparametric tests: Mann–Whitney U for intergroup comparisons; Wilcoxon signed-rank test for intragroup pre–post comparisons. Significance threshold p≤0.05. Effect sizes computed using Rosenthal’s R.

Pre-intervention equivalence: Mann–Whitney U indicated no significant differences between groups on pretest items (p>0.05) except Item 10, where control scored higher (U=182.000, p=0.028). Experimental group pre–post: Significant improvements on all 11 items (Wilcoxon, p<0.05) with mostly moderate effect sizes (ES≈0.50–0.63), except Item 6 with lower ES (Z=−2.529, p=0.011, ES=0.373). Posttest means exceeded the scale midpoint (2) on all items. Examples: Item 3 mean increased from 0.83 to 3.91; Item 8 from 0.17 to 2.91; Item 10 from 0.04 to 2.57. Control group pre–post: Significant improvements on Items 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 (p<0.05) with small effect sizes (ES≈0.308–0.485). Item 5 significantly worsened (Z=−2.000, p=0.046, ES=0.309). Only three posttest items (3, 6, 9) had means above 2; overall posttest performance remained low compared to the experimental group. Intergroup posttest: Experimental group outperformed control on almost all items with significant differences and mainly moderate effect sizes: Item 1 ES=0.567 (U=87.500, p<0.001), Item 2 ES=0.580 (U=83.000, p<0.001), Item 3 ES=0.534 (U=117.500, p<0.001), Item 5 ES=0.509 (U=114.500, p=0.001), Item 7 ES=0.505 (U=102.500, p=0.001), Item 8 ES=0.437 (U=122.000, p=0.004), Item 9 ES=0.443 (U=122.500, p=0.003), Item 10 ES=0.538 (U=95.500, p<0.001), Item 11 ES=0.451 (U=118.500, p=0.003). Item 6 differences were not significant (U=173.500, p=0.078, ES=0.266).

The findings directly address the research question by showing that a gamified, historical-thinking-oriented intervention yields significantly higher learning outcomes than traditional textbook-based instruction for primary students. The experimental group demonstrated broad and substantial gains across all assessed historical thinking dimensions, while control group gains were limited and smaller in magnitude. These results support the premise that gamification, when designed with narrative coherence, feedback, progression, and aligned historical thinking tasks, enhances motivation and engagement and translates into improved academic performance. The outcomes are consistent with prior literature reporting positive impacts of gamification on learning, motivation, and participation, and align with constructivist approaches and current educational recommendations emphasizing competence development, problem solving, autonomy, and critical thinking over rote memorization. The study suggests that gamification can practically facilitate project-based and cooperative learning in history, supporting a methodological shift in primary classrooms.

Implementing a gamified project grounded in historical thinking in a 4th year primary class significantly improved students’ learning outcomes compared with a traditional textbook-based approach. The study contributes empirical evidence at the primary level, an understudied context, demonstrating that thoughtfully designed gamification can foster acquisition of both first-order and second-order historical concepts. The results can inform teacher training and curricular design toward more active, inclusive, and competence-oriented history education. Future research should expand sample sizes, include additional educational levels, and compare gamification with other active methodologies to corroborate and extend these findings.

Key limitations include a small, non-probabilistic sample from a single school context, limiting generalizability; reliance on internal assessors without external evaluators or multiple raters to enable triangulation; and focus on one academic term and specific content domain (Prehistory and Ancient History).