The Use of Educational Breakout with Augmented Reality in Initial Teacher Training: Students’ Perceptions of Motivation, Collaboration and Learning

El uso del Breakout educativo con realidad aumentada en la formación inicial docente: percepciones del alumnado sobre motivación, colaboración y aprendizaje

Santos Urbina Ramírez. Universitat de les Illes Balears. España.

Gemma Tur Ferrer. Universitat de les Illes Balears. España.

Sofia Villatoro Moral. Universitat de les Illes Balears. España.

Adolfina Pérez Garcias. Universitat de les Illes Balears. España.

Received: 2025/03/02 Revised: 2025/03/03 Accepted: 2025/12/15 Published: 2026/05/01

How to cite:

Urbina Ramírez, S., Tur Ferrer, G., Villatoro Moral, S., & Pérez Garcias, A. (2026). The Use of Educational Breakout with Augmented Reality in Initial Teacher Training: Students’ Perceptions of Motivation, Collaboration, and Learning [El uso del breakout educativo con realidad aumentada en la formación inicial docente: percepciones del alumnado sobre motivación, colaboración y aprendizaje]. Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educación, 76, Art. 8. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.116184

ABSTRACT

In the field of higher education, gamification and the use of technologies such as augmented reality have gained prominence due to their potential to foster student motivation, active engagement and learning. This study aims to analyse university students' perceptions of a gamified augmented reality-based breakout experience implemented in Early Childhood and Primary Education degree programmes, and to explore its relationship with personal variables and design aspects of the activity. Upon completion of the experience, a 20-item questionnaire was administered to 131 students. The instrument demonstrated high internal consistency (α=0.886). The results indicate highly positive evaluations in terms of engagement, collaboration, and motivation, and moderately positive, yet still favourable, perceptions regarding reflection and learning. Significant correlations were found among the various evaluated components. The observed positive correlations suggest that a well-structured activity and appropriate dynamics may be associated with greater satisfaction toward this type of pedagogical approach. The study supports the potential of gamified augmented reality-based strategies in initial teacher education and highlights the need to further investigate this field through additional samples and complementary methodologies.

RESUMEN

En el ámbito de la educación superior, la gamificación y el uso de tecnologías como la realidad aumentada han cobrado importancia por su potencial para fomentar la motivación, la implicación activa y el aprendizaje del alumnado. Este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar la percepción de estudiantes universitarios sobre una experiencia gamificada con realidad aumentada, en formato breakout, aplicada en los grados de Educación Infantil y Primaria, y explorar su relación con variables personales y aspectos del diseño de la actividad. Finalizada la experiencia, se administró un cuestionario formado por 20 ítems, al que respondieron 131 estudiantes. El instrumento mostró una alta consistencia interna (α=0.886). Los resultados revelan valoraciones muy positivas en los aspectos de implicación, colaboración y motivación, y algo más moderadas, aunque también favorables, en reflexión y aprendizaje. Se encontraron correlaciones significativas entre los distintos elementos evaluados, las cuales sugieren que una estructura bien diseñada y una dinámica adecuada podrían estar asociadas con una mayor satisfacción hacia este tipo de enfoques pedagógicos. El estudio respalda el potencial del enfoque gamificado con realidad aumentada en la formación inicial docente y plantea la necesidad de ampliar las investigaciones en este ámbito con nuevas muestras y metodologías complementarias.

KEYWORDS · PALABRAS CLAVES

Educational breakout; augmented reality; higher education; Teaching innovation; initial teacher training; Breakout educativo; realidad aumentada; educación superior; innovación docente; formación inicial docente

1. Introduction

Several studies have indicated that traditional teaching methodologies may be insufficient to capture students’ interest, thereby adversely affecting levels of engagement and motivation in the classroom (Suryani et al., 2022; Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2021; Manzano-León et al., 2021). This body of evidence underscores the pivotal role of pedagogical approaches in fostering student motivation (Jiménez, 2020; Tang & Hu, 2023). In response to this challenge, a range of pedagogical approaches that incorporate digital technologies and more active learning dynamics have gained increasing prominence, among which gamification occupies a notable position.

1.1 An overview of gamification and educational breakouts in the classroom

In recent years, growing interest in the adoption of active learning methodologies within higher education has prompted the exploration of approaches aimed at enhancing student engagement and fostering the development of skills. Among these proposals, gamification and the educational breakout have emerged as two strategies which, from complementary perspectives, introduce playful dynamics into formal educational settings.

Deterding et al. (2011) define gamification as the use of game design elements in non-game contexts, a definition that has been widely adopted within educational research. Building on this conceptualisation, numerous studies have examined its potential in higher education to enhance motivation, engagement and academic performance (Cerezo & Pujolà, 2024; Khaldi et al., 2023; Moreno Fuentes, 2019; Li et al., 2023). Key features of this approach include the provision of clear instructions to maintain focus on learning objectives (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021), the use of rewards and the encouragement of competition (Peñafiel, 2021), as well as the promotion of student engagement and interest (Nand et al., 2019).

From a broader perspective, gamification enables the design of meaningful learning experiences, enhancing academic performance by fostering motivation through playful means without excessively extending the duration of the activity (Destre et al., 2022; Svanberg & Bergh, 2023). According to Treiblmaier and Putz (2020), this approach primarily impacts intrinsic motivation—understood in terms of curiosity and enjoyment—by moderating the effect of external incentives. Yang (2023) further notes that success or failure in gamified activities directly shapes students’ emotional responses: success tends to generate positive feelings reinforced by rewards and points, whereas failure may lead to frustration. Nevertheless, when task difficulty is appropriately calibrated, optimal levels of motivation can be achieved. Ultimately, the aim is not only for students to acquire knowledge, but also to enhance their engagement and academic success (Pujolà & Herrera, 2020).

In this regard, several studies, including those conducted by Duterte (2024), Lampropoulos and Sidiropoulos (2024), and Manzano-León et al. (2021), suggest that beyond motivational benefits, gamification may also lead to improved learning outcomes, thereby supporting academic performance. Moreover, these dynamics promote peer collaboration, afford students greater autonomy and enable less punitive forms of assessment (Ardila-Muñoz, 2019).

Nevertheless, gamification has also been subject to critical scrutiny. As highlighted by Almeida et al. (2024), a substantial body of research reports findings that call into question its capacity to enhance learning outcomes and, in some cases, even student motivation.

Among the various forms of educational gamification, the educational breakout approach stands out as a collaborative experience in which students are required to solve a series of interconnected puzzles or challenges in order to unlock a sealed box. Although it does not involve physically escaping from a space, the activity emulates the logic of escape rooms, fostering teamwork, critical thinking and active engagement within an educational context (Rouse, 2017). Its application in higher education has been associated with the development of transversal skills such as cooperation, problem-solving and time management (Sanz-Prieto & de Pablo, 2021; Moreno Fuentes, 2019). In addition, Serrano and Martínez Carmona (2024) highlight its potential to enhance motivation and learning, as well as to promote the development of professional skills, including collaboration, problem-solving and decision-making in authentic educational settings.

The versatility of this approach allows for the incorporation of digital resources and virtual environments, thereby enriching the educational experience (Corchuelo, 2018; Cuevas et al., 2021). Many gamification experiences make use of different digital media, such as augmented reality (AR). Consequently, the integration of gamification with AR constitutes a powerful educational tool, increasing motivation and engagement by offering more immersive and engaging learning experiences (Chóez & Larreal, 2023; García-Iruela et al., 2022).

1.2 Augmented reality as a complementary resource to gamification and educational breakouts

AR has gradually been incorporated into educational contexts as an immersive tool aimed at enriching the teaching-learning process. When combined with strategies such as gamification and educational breakouts, it introduces an interactive component that encourages participation and increases interest in the proposed tasks. Within the context of initial teacher education, this integration is particularly relevant, as it supports the development of key professional skills, including creative problem-solving, collaborative work and decision-making in dynamic environments (Sanz-Prieto & de Pablo, 2021).

AR overlays virtual images onto the real environment through devices such as smartphones or tablets, enabling user interaction (Coimbra et al., 2015). In educational settings, it can enhance learning through interactive explorations, providing novel experiences that facilitate the understanding of complex concepts (Chóez & Larreal, 2023). Furthermore, it may foster the development of research-related skills (Rodríguez-Cardoso et al., 2019).

Recent studies on gamification supported by AR highlight that such approaches increase motivation and optimise both participation and learning outcomes (Ramadhan et al., 2022; Weng et al., 2023). Lampropoulos et al. (2022) also note its application in fields such as STEM education and language learning.

In light of the above, an educational innovation project was developed, approved and funded by the University of the Balearic Islands (Spain). The project was implemented over two academic years and involved teaching staff from the Early Childhood Education (GEI) and Primary Education (GEP) degree programmes within the field of Educational Technology. During the first iteration, a gamified activity incorporating augmented reality through QR codes was designed as a concluding task for the unit on digital media design in education, adopting the educational breakout format. A narrative was created specifically for this purpose, in which the main character required students’ assistance to answer ten questions and solve a final puzzle to reveal an inspirational message.

In the second year of implementation, several improvements were introduced. The instructional materials, developed using ActivePresenter, were exported in SCORM format and integrated into the institutional learning platform (Moodle), thereby facilitating access and enabling the recording of user interactions. Working in pairs, students were required to locate ten markers placed within the classroom or its immediate surroundings and correctly answer the proposed questions in order to obtain an encoded phrase. The questions, presented in a multiple-choice format, prompted students to view an image or video associated with an educational multimedia resource and to select the most appropriate option. Each correct response generated a code that could be used to solve a subsequent puzzle, ultimately providing access to the final solution.

As can be observed, the design of the activity is oriented towards active and skills-based learning, integrating an educational narrative with the collaborative completion of challenges.

The overall aim of the study was to analyse the perceptions of students enrolled in Early Childhood and Primary Education regarding the implemented experience.

The following specific objectives were also established:

· To examine students’ evaluation of the gamified experience in relation to motivation, engagement, collaboration, reflection and learning.

· To identify potential differences according to personal variables such as gender, degree programme, self-perceived digital competence and route of access to higher education.

· To assess students’ perceptions of the activity design in terms of structure, content, dynamics and duration.

· To explore the relationships between evaluations of the activity design and the different aspects perceived during the experience.

2. Methodology

To address the research objectives, a quantitative methodology with a descriptive and correlational design was adopted.

2.1 Data collection instrument

An ad hoc questionnaire was developed for data collection, grounded in the conceptualisation of gamification within educational contexts. The instrument was validated through expert judgement by eight specialists in the field of Educational Technology. In its final version, it comprises 20 items organised into two sections: the first gathers participants’ profile information, while the second includes items aimed at evaluating the session and the activity. This second section contains two six-point Likert-type scales (0-5), which assess the session (five items) and the activity design (four items), respectively. The questionnaire, which was refined based on feedback from its use during the first year of the project, is available in the Zenodo repository at the following link: https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.11401226

Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, yielding a value of α=0.886, which indicates a high level of reliability.

The questionnaire was administered via Google Forms during a class session following the completion of the gamified activity.

2.2 Participants

The study participants comprised 131 university students, of whom 74 were enrolled in the fourth year of GEI and 57 in the third year of GEP.

3. Results

First, the results related to participants’ characteristics are presented, including self-perceived digital competence. This is followed by the overall results of students’ evaluations of the gamified session in relation to motivation, engagement and reflection, as well as comparisons across different groups (route of access to higher education, digital competence, gender and degree programme). Finally, results concerning the design of the activity, the dynamics implemented and its duration are reported.

3.1 Participant characteristics: age, degree programme, gender, route of access to higher education and perceived digital competence

The mean age of participants was 22.39 years, with ages ranging from 19 to 45. In terms of degree programme, 74 students were enrolled in GEP (56.49%), while 57 were studying GEI (43.51%). With regard to gender, 108 participants identified as female (82.44%), 22 as male (16.79%) and one as non-binary (0.76%).

The predominant route of access to higher education was the University Entrance Examination (PBAU); however, nearly half of the students enrolled in GEI (43.86%) had accessed university through a higher vocational qualification (Table 1).

Table 1

Distribution by degree programme and route of access to higher education

	GEI	GEP
PBAU	54.39% (31)	81.08% (60)
Higher vocational qualification	43.86% (25)	14.86% (11)
Other university studies	1.75% (1)	1.35% (1)
Access for applicants aged over 25, 40 or 45	0	2.70% (2)

Participants were also asked to self-assess their level of digital competence (DC) on a scale from 1 to 10. The mean perceived level was 7.42. When comparing GEI and GEP groups, mean scores of 7.14 and 7.62 were observed, respectively. A score above 7 may be considered indicative of a high level of confidence in one’s digital skills. Overall, these mean values suggest that GEI students perceive themselves as slightly less digitally competent than their GEP counterparts (Table 2).

Table 2

Distribution of responses according to self-assigned digital competence (DC) scores

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
GEI	1.8%	0%	0%	0%	0%	21.4%	39.3%	28.6%	8.9%	0%
GEP	0%	0%	0%	1.4%	0%	12.2%	27%	43.2%	13.5%	2.7%

In line with the above, the data suggests that students from both degree programmes perceive themselves as having a relatively high level of digital competence, with responses concentrated in the medium-to-high range of the scale. Considering the percentages obtained, GEP students tend to perceive themselves as more competent than GEI students at the highest levels (scores of 8 to 10), with proportions of 59.4% and 37.5%, respectively.

Despite this tendency, the Chi-square test yielded a p-value of 0.153, indicating that there is no statistically significant association between degree programme and self-perceived digital competence.

When analysing self-perceived digital competence by gender, male participants reported slightly higher self-assessments, with 63.6% of responses falling within the three highest score categories (8-10), compared to 47.2% among female participants. Conversely, female participants showed a higher concentration of responses in the mid-range of the scale (scores of 6-7), accounting for 50.9%, compared to 36.3% among male participants.

However, no statistically significant relationship was found between self-perceived digital competence and gender, as indicated by the Chi-square test (p=0.406).

3.2. Evaluation of the gamified session in relation to motivation, engagement, learning, collaboration and reflection

With regard to the evaluation of the gamified activity, students reported a high level of satisfaction across the assessed dimensions. Collaboration and engagement received the highest ratings, with mean scores of 4.52 and 4.38, respectively. Motivation also stood out, with a mean of 4.24. Lower, albeit still favourable, ratings were observed for the items related to reflection and learning, with mean scores of 3.76 and 3.55, respectively, bearing in mind that the scale ranged from 0 to 5.

In terms of response distribution, the collaboration item concentrated 88.5% of responses in the two highest categories (4 and 5), while engagement accounted for 88.6% and motivation for 84% of responses at these upper levels. As noted above, the reflection and learning items yielded comparatively lower percentages, with 73.3% and 64.1% of responses, respectively, falling within the highest score categories.

3.2.1 Relationships among the session evaluation items

To examine the relationships among the evaluated items, Spearman’s correlation coefficient was applied. The analysis yielded positive correlations with p-values below 0.05 across all pairwise comparisons, indicating that the different assessed dimensions are closely interrelated.

Focusing on the strongest associations, two relationships are particularly noteworthy:

· Engagement and collaboration: a strong and statistically significant correlation was found between engagement and collaboration (p=0.001; ρ=0.510), suggesting that students who reported higher levels of engagement also perceived greater collaboration during the activity.

· Learning and reflection: this pair exhibited the highest correlation (p=0.001; ρ=0.550), indicating that students who reported higher levels of learning also tended to report greater reflection during the activity.

3.2.2 Relationship between session evaluation and route of access to higher education

When applying the Kruskal-Wallis test, only one statistically significant relationship was identified: that between the route of access to higher education and the evaluation of reflection (p=0.043). Subsequent pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction allowed for a more detailed examination of this effect. A value close to the significance threshold (p=0.055) was observed when comparing students who accessed university through PBAU with those who did so via a higher vocational qualification. The latter group obtained a higher mean score (4.08 compared to 3.62), suggesting that students entering university through a higher vocational pathway tend to place greater value on reflection than those accessing via PBAU.

3.2.3 Relationship between session evaluation and gender

The Mann-Whitney U test yielded statistically significant p-values (p<0.05) for the association between gender and three dimensions: engagement (p=0.019), learning (p=0.026) and collaboration (p=0.035). In all three cases, female participants showed higher mean ranks, indicating a more positive perception of these aspects. This pattern is further supported by the group mean scores presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Mean session evaluation scores by gender

	Engagement	Learning	Collaboration
Male	4.09	3.05	4.18
Female	4.44	3.66	4.58

3.2.4 Relationship between session evaluation and degree programme

When comparing students from the two degree programmes, the overall evaluation of the session was very positive in both cases, although ratings were consistently higher among GEI students. Specifically, for the motivation item, this group concentrated 89.4% of responses in the two highest categories, compared to 79.7% among GEP students. Regarding task engagement, GEI students accounted for 94.7% of responses at the highest levels, whereas GEP students reached 83.8% (Figure 1). Similarly, in terms of collaboration, the percentages were 91.4% for GEI and 78% for GEP (Figure 2). For learning, the corresponding values were 77.2% and 54%, and for reflection, 85.9% and 63.5%, respectively.

Figure 1

Comparison of engagement ratings by degree programme (GEI and GEP)

Source: own elaboration.

Figure 2

Comparison of collaboration ratings by degree programme (GEI and GEP)

Source: own elaboration.

When applying the Mann-Whitney U test, statistically significant associations were found for the learning (p=0.002) and reflection (p=0.001) items, which were also the two dimensions that received the lowest ratings, particularly among GEP students. To determine the direction of these differences, mean ranks were examined for both items, revealing that values were noticeably higher for the GEI group. This suggests that GEI students evaluated both learning and reflection more positively than their GEP counterparts in the proposed activity. This trend is also reflected in the group mean scores for these items (Table 4).

Table 4

Mean session evaluation scores by degree programme

	Learning	Reflection
GEI	3.88	4.09
GEP	3.30	3.51

3.2.5 Relationship between session evaluation and DC level

The results of Spearman’s correlation test yielded p-values greater than 0.05 for all items, indicating that none of the relationships examined reached statistical significance. Consequently, no association appears to exist between the level of DC and the evaluation of the different elements of the session.

3.3 Evaluation of the activity design: structure, content, implemented dynamics and duration

Regarding the evaluation of the activity design, the implemented dynamics and the duration of the session received the highest ratings, with mean scores of 4.18 and 4.15, respectively. By contrast, the item related to content obtained the lowest mean score (M=3.70), followed by structure (M=3.96). These two items also showed the highest standard deviations (σ=1.18 and σ=0.94, respectively), indicating greater variability in students’ perceptions.

In terms of response distribution, the item referring to the implemented dynamics concentrated 80.1% of responses in the two highest categories, while the item related to session duration obtained the same percentage. The items referring to content and structure reached 63.4% and 76.3% of responses, respectively, in these upper categories.

3.3.1 Relationships among activity design evaluation items

To examine the relationships among the activity design evaluation items, Spearman’s correlation coefficient was applied. The analysis yielded p-values below the 0.05 threshold for all pairwise comparisons. Moreover, all correlations were positive, with the strongest association observed between session structure and implemented dynamics (ρ=0.668). Other moderate correlations were also identified, such as those between implemented dynamics and content (ρ=0.520), and between implemented dynamics and duration (ρ=0.510).

3.3.2 Relationship between design evaluation and route of access to higher education

When applying the Kruskal-Wallis test, all p-values obtained were greater than 0.05. Therefore, no statistically significant relationship was found between students’ evaluation of the activity design and their route of access to higher education.

3.3.3 Relationship between design evaluation and DC level

To analyse whether any relationship existed between perceived DC and the evaluation of the activity design, Spearman’s correlation coefficient was applied. In this case, no statistically significant correlations were found, as all p-values were greater than 0.05. Therefore, no association appears to exist between DC level and students’ evaluation of the session design.

3.3.4 Relationship between design evaluation and gender

When applying the Mann-Whitney U test, a single statistically significant association was identified between gender and the evaluation of the content addressed in the activity (p<0.001). Analysis of the corresponding mean ranks shows that male participants (M=2.86) rated this aspect noticeably lower than female participants (M=3.88), suggesting a more favourable evaluation of the activity design among women.

3.3.5 Relationship between design evaluation and degree programme

When comparing responses by degree programme, the overall evaluation of the activity design was very positive across both groups, although GEI students provided more favourable ratings overall. Examination of the individual design-related items reveals that the duration of the activity (Figure 3) was particularly well rated by both groups (GEI: 91.2%; GEP: 86.5%). With regard to the implemented dynamics (Figure 4), GEI students rated this aspect considerably higher than GEP students (87.7% compared to 74.3%). In terms of structure, 80.7% of GEI students rated the activity in the two highest categories, compared to 73% of GEP students. Finally, content received a moderately high evaluation among GEI students (78.9%), whereas it reached only 51.3% of the most favourable ratings among GEP students.

Figure 3

Comparison of activity duration ratings by degree programme (GEI and GEP)

Source: own elaboration.

Figure 4

Comparison of implemented dynamics ratings by degree programme (GEI and GEP)

Source: own elaboration.

When applying the Mann-Whitney U test, statistically significant associations were found between degree programme and all four items used to evaluate the activity design. To determine the direction of these differences, mean ranks were examined, revealing that values for the GEI group were consistently higher. This suggests that GEI students evaluated all aspects related to the activity design more positively than GEP students, a pattern that is also reflected in the mean scores reported in Table 5.

Table 5

Mean activity design evaluation scores by degree programme

	Structure	Dynamics	Content	Duration
GEI	4.23	4.47	4.23	4.46
GEP	3.76	3.95	3.30	3.91

3.4 Relationship between session and design evaluations

When Spearman’s correlation test was applied, all correlations were positive and the obtained p-values were below 0.05. This indicates that students who rated any aspect of the session positively also tended to evaluate the activity design favourably. It is also worth noting that several associations stood out due to their strength, with relatively high rho (ρ) values, such as the relationship between motivation and implemented dynamics (ρ=0.560), between learning and dynamics (ρ=0.540), and between learning and content (ρ=0.599).

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Overall, the findings indicate that the objectives set out in this study have been achieved. The most relevant results are outlined below.

The results show that participating students report a high level of digital competence, in line with findings reported by Salas-Delgado et al. (2022) across different university degree programmes. This suggests that students perceive themselves as adequately prepared to work with digital technologies in educational settings, highlighting the need for higher education institutions to systematically incorporate these tools into their curricula.

The evaluation of the gamified session supported by augmented reality reveals a high level of student satisfaction, with engagement and collaboration emerging as the most highly valued aspects. These findings are consistent with those reported by Balbaa and Abdurashidova (2023) and Li et al. (2023), who emphasise that such approaches promote collaboration and student engagement. The strong correlation identified in this study between engagement and collaboration suggests that students who feel more engaged also tend to collaborate more actively. Similarly, Ramadhan et al. (2022) note that gamified activities incorporating AR foster participation and engagement, which aligns with the results obtained in the present study.

Students who reported higher levels of learning also indicated greater reflection on the content. Lampropoulos and Sidiropoulos (2024) suggest that the immediate feedback afforded by gamification supports this reflective process. Other studies (Li et al., 2023; Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2021) likewise identify gamification as an effective strategy for improving learning outcomes, while Manzano-León et al. (2021) report a positive effect on academic performance. Although learning was not the highest-rated item in the present study, it was nevertheless perceived favourably by the majority of participants. It is important to note, in line with studies such as that by Buchner et al. (2022), which highlight the value of implementing gamified activities after instruction, that the proposed intervention was designed as a revision strategy and did not introduce new content. For this reason, students may not have perceived the experience as involving the acquisition of entirely novel knowledge.

In addition, a significant relationship was observed between the evaluation of reflection and the route of access to higher education, with students who entered university through a higher vocational qualification assigning greater value to this aspect. This finding may be attributable to a higher level of maturity stemming from their academic and life trajectories.

Motivation was also evaluated positively, reflecting students’ interest in this type of approach, as evidenced by numerous studies. García-López et al. (2023) highlight the effectiveness of gamification in enhancing motivation. Smiderle et al. (2020) likewise report positive effects, while noting that these may vary according to personality traits, a factor not considered in the present study. Two systematic reviews (Fitria, 2022; Infante-Villagrán et al., 2022) report improvements in motivation across the majority of studies analysed. Similarly, Erylmaz and Boicu (2023) confirm this effect when examining different gamification elements, observing increases in enthusiasm, engagement and interest in the proposed challenges.

With regard to gender differences, female students reported more positive evaluations in terms of engagement, collaboration and learning. Sharma et al. (2023) highlight the existence of a gender gap in the perception and acceptance of gamification and recommend the inclusion of dynamics and challenges that are equally appealing and relevant to all genders. Female students may find these activities more motivating, which is reflected in higher levels of engagement, whereas male students may hold different expectations shaped by prior experiences.

Focusing on the design of the activity, the overall evaluation was very positive. The implemented dynamics and the duration of the session received the highest scores, indicating favourable perceptions of both the way the activity was conducted and the time allocated to it. Positive evaluations of the session duration suggest that the time invested was perceived as appropriate, contributing to an effective and engaging learning experience without generating undue pressure (García-Iruela & Hijón Neira, 2020). Structure and content were also positively assessed, albeit with greater variability in responses. This suggests that students perceived consistency in the activity design, which is essential for learning and helps to prevent cognitive overload (Romero & Kalmpourtzis, 2020). In this respect, the present study contributes to the body of knowledge on the effects of gamification design, an area in which a recent literature review has highlighted a scarcity of empirical research (Infante-Villagrán et al., 2022). It may therefore be argued that a well-structured design and appropriate dynamics are key to the success of such initiatives, in line with the findings reported by Nava (2024) in a review of educational breakout design.

Furthermore, the study also identified significant differences between GEI and GEP students in their perceptions of both the session and the activity design. For instance, GEI students rated the learning experience and reflection more positively, as well as the overall design of the activity. No comparable studies were found that would allow these differences to be directly contrasted; they may therefore be attributable to contextual factors or to differing expectations across groups. In this regard, the markedly higher proportion of female students in the GEI group may also have played a role.

Beyond confirming that this type of experience enhances students’ motivation and engagement, the results also indicate that the same educational breakout activity supported by augmented reality may be perceived differently depending on the degree programme, particularly in dimensions related to learning and reflection. These findings reinforce the notion that the impact of gamified approaches does not depend solely on their design, but also on the educational context and the learner profile, as noted by various authors (Deterding et al., 2011; Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2021). Consequently, particular attention should be paid to the role of the teacher as a key agent in maximising the educational value of the experience, adapting it to the specific context in which it is implemented.

Regarding the limitations of the study, it should first be noted that the data were collected through a self-perception questionnaire, which may entail response biases. Second, the analysed experience was conducted within a specific and time-bound context, which prevents the assessment of potential medium- and long-term effects. Finally, the exclusively quantitative approach adopted limits an in-depth understanding of certain findings, which could have been enriched through the inclusion of qualitative data.

With respect to future lines of research, several directions are proposed. On the one hand, qualitative studies could be conducted to provide a more detailed and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon. On the other hand, expanding the sample to include different subjects, fields of knowledge or even other universities would help to examine the consistency of the results obtained. It would also be of interest to include actual academic performance as an additional variable of analysis, in order to explore its potential relationship with the factors examined.

Author contributions

Study design, Author1; conceptualisation, Author1, Author2, Author3 and Author4; methodology and data analysis, Author1; writing, review and editing, Author1, Author2, Author3 and Author4.

Funding

This study was carried out as part of a teaching innovation project awarded by the Institute for Educational Research and Innovation (IRIE) at the University of the Balearic Islands (UIB), reference PID222453, within the 2022-2024 call.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

Almeida, C., Kalinowski, M., & Feijó, B. (2021, September). A systematic mapping of negative effects of gamification in education/learning systems. In 47th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) (pp. 17-24). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA53835.2021.00011

Ardila-Muñoz, J. Y. (2019). Supuestos teóricos para la gamificación de la educación superior. Magis. Revista Internacional de Investigación en Educación, 12(24), 71-84. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.m12-24.stge

Balbaa, M. E., & Abdurashidova, M. (2023). Enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes through gamification in education. In S. M. Curle y M. T. Hebebci (Eds.) Proceedings of International Conference on Academic Studies in Technology and Education 2023 (pp. 13-20). Antalya, Turkiye. ARSTE Organization. https://bit.ly/42TuLxl

Buchner, J., Rüter, M., & Kerres, M. (2022). Learning with a digital escape room game: before or after instruction?. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17, 10 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00187-x

Cerezo, L., y Pujolà, J. T. (2024). Pedagogía lúdica digital (PLD): Videojuegos, minijuegos, realidades extendidas y robots. En J. Muñoz-Basols, M. Fuertes Gutiérrez, y L. Cerezo (Eds.), La enseñanza del español mediada por tecnología: De la justicia social a la inteligencia artificial (IA) (pp. 311-340). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003146391-16

Chóez Chiliquinga, E. N., y Larreal Bracho, A. J. (2023). Gamificación y realidad aumentada como herramienta para enseñar y aprender. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 7(2), 1325-1335. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v7i2.5404

Coimbra, T., Cardoso, T., & Mateus, A. (2015). Augmented reality: an enhancer for higher education students in math's learning?. Procedia Computer Science, 67, 332-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.277

Corchuelo, C. (2018). Gamificación en educación superior: Experiencia innovadora para motivar estudiantes y dinamizar contenidos en el aula. Edutec, Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, (63), 29-41. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2018.63.927

Cuevas Monzonís, N., Cívico Ariza, A., Gabarda Méndez, V., y Colomo Magaña, E. (2021). Percepción del alumnado sobre la gamificación en la educación superior. REIDOCREA, 10(16), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.66757

Destre, P. C., Barboza, J. R. R., Garay, J. P., Sánchez, G. A. Á., y Albornoz, V. C. (2022). Gamificación como técnica de motivación en el nivel superior. Horizontes. Revista de Investigación en Ciencias de la Educación, 6(23), 484-496. https://doi.org/10.33996/revistahorizontes.v6i23.351

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification”. 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9–15). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040

Duterte, J. P. (2024). The Impact of Educational Gamification on Student Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(10), 477-487. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8100040

Erylmaz, Y., & Boicu, M. (2023). The Impact of Gamification on Motivation and Engagement in Game-based Learning Environments-A Literature Review. Journal of Student-Scientists' Research, 5. https://doi.org/10.13021/jssr2023.3861

Fitria, T. N. (2022). The impact of gamification on students’ motivation: A Systematic Literature Review. Ling Tera, 9(2), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.21831/lt.v9i2.56616

Garcia-Iruela, M., & Hijón-Neira, R (2020). What Perception Do Students Have About the Gamification Elements? IEEE Access, 8, 134386-134392. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3011222

García-Iruela, M., Hijón-Neira, R., & Connolly, C. (2022). Can Gamification Help in Increasing Motivation, Engagement, and Satisfaction? A gamified experience in teaching CS to students from other disciplines. Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS), 23, e26932-e26932. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.26932

García-López, I. M., Acosta-Gonzaga, E., & Ruiz-Ledesma, E. F. (2023). Investigating the impact of gamification on student motivation, engagement, and performance. Education Sciences, 13(8), 813. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080813

Infante-Villagrán, V. A., Maluenda-Albornoz, J. I., López-Angulo, Y., y Díaz-Mujica, A. (2022). Revisión Sistemática acerca del Efecto de la Ludificación de la Enseñanza en la Motivación de Estudiantes de Educación Superior. Revista Interuniversitaria De Formación Del Profesorado, 97(36.3). https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v97i36.3.92641

Jiménez, J. (2020). La gamificación en la educación superior: Una revisión bibliográfica actual para su implantación en el grado de trabajo social. En R. Roig-Vila, (coord.). Redes de Investigación e Innovación en Docencia Universitaria, 2020 (pp. 85-94). Universidad de Alicante, Instituto de Ciencias de la Educación (ICE). https://bit.ly/3GPKtAZ

Kalogiannakis, M., Papadakis, S., & Zourmpakis, A-I. (2021). Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature. Education Sciences, 11(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010022

Khaldi, A., Bouzidi, R., & Nader, F. (2023). Gamification of e-learning in higher education: a systematic literature review. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00227-z

Lampropoulos, G., Keramopoulos, E., Diamantaras K., & Evangelidis, G. (2022). Augmented Reality and Gamification in Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Research, Applications, and Empirical Studies. Applied Sciences, 12(13), 6809. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136809

Lampropoulos, G., & Sidiropoulos, A. (2024). Impact of Gamification on Students’ Learning Outcomes and Academic Performance: A Longitudinal Study Comparing Online, Traditional, and Gamified Learning. Education Sciences, 14(4), 367. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040367

Li, M., Ma, S., & Shi, Y. (2023). Examining the effectiveness of gamification as a tool promoting teaching and learning in educational settings: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1253549. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1253549

Manzano-León, A., Camacho-Lazarraga, P., Guerrero, M.A., Guerrero-Puerta, L., Aguilar-Parra, J. M., Trigueros, R., & Alias, A. (2021). Between Level Up and Game Over: A Systematic Literature Review of Gamification in Education. Sustainability, 13(4), 2247. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042247

Moreno Fuentes, E. (2019). El “Breakout EDU” como herramienta clave para la gamificación en la formación inicial de maestros/as. Edutec. Revista Electrónica De Tecnología Educativa, 67. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2018.66.1247

Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., López Sánchez, J. Á., Godoy-Caballero, A. L., & Bueno Muñoz, C. (2021). Gamification and active learning in higher education: is it possible to match digital society, academia and students' interests? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00249-y

Nand, K., Baghaei, N., Casey, J., Barmada, B., Mehdipour, F., & Liang, H. (2019). Engaging children with educational content via gamification. Smart Learning Environments, 6, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0085-2

Peñafiel, W. N. (2021). El enfoque complejo de las estrategias de gamificación en la educación superior. Revista Eduser, 8(1), 90-103. https://doi.org/10.18050/eduser.v8i1.141

Pujolà, J. T., & Herrera, F. J. (2020). Gamificación. In J. Muñoz-Basols, E. Gironzetti, & M. Lacorte (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Language Teaching: Metodologías, contextos y recursos para la enseñanza del español L2 (pp. 583-595). Routledge.

Ramadhan, A. D., Permanasari, A. E., & Wibirama, S. (2022, December). Gamification opportunity in augmented reality-based learning media: A review. En 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Cybernetics Technology & Applications (ICICyTA) (pp. 117-122). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICyTA57421.2022.10037922

Rodríguez-Cardoso, Ó. I., Ballesteros-Ballesteros, V. A., & Lozano-Forero, S. (2019). Tecnologías digitales para la innovación en educación: una revisión teórica de procesos de aprendizaje mediados por dispositivos móviles. Pensamiento y Acción, 28, 83-103. https://doi.org/10.19053/01201190.n28.2020.11192

Romero, M., & Kalmpourtzis, G. (2020). Constructive Alignment in Game Design for Learning Activities in Higher Education. Information, 11(3), 126. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11030126

Rouse, W. (2017). Lessons learned while escaping from a zombie: Designing a Breakout EDU game. The History Teacher, 50(4), 553–564. https://bit.ly/4jaRKsM

Salas-Delgado, M. V., Portilla-Vilca, E., Chara-Barreda, C., & Turpo-Rodríguez, A. M. (2022, September). Level of the dimensions of the digital competence in university students from different academic areas. En XII International Conference on Virtual Campus (JICV) (pp. 1-4). https://doi.org/10.1109/JICV56113.2022.9934373

Sanz-Prieto, M., & de Pablo González, G. (2021). Gamify Gamifying: Learning with Breakouts. En L. Daniela (Ed.) Smart Pedagogy of Game-based Learning. Advances in Game-Based Learning (pp. 103-118). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76986-4_7

Serrano, F. J., & Martinez Carmona, M. (2024). La materia a través de un BreakoutEDU: incorporación de metodologías activas en la formación inicial de docentes en ciencias. Ápice. Revista de Educación Científica, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.17979/arec.2024.8.2.10670

Sharma, R., Sharma, H., Ali, A., Sahani, C., & Gupta, P. (2023). An Empirical Study Gender-Based Perception of Gamification and its Impact on Programming Skill Enhancement. Journal of Informatics Education and Research, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.52783/jier.v3i2.91

Smiderle, R., Rigo, S. J., Marques, L. B., Peçanha de Miranda Coelho, J. A., & Jaques, P. A. (2020). The impact of gamification on students’ learning, engagement and behavior based on their personality traits. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0098-x

Suryani, A., Soedarso, S., Muhibbin, Z., Wahyuddin, W., & Saifulloh, M. (2022). Youth as Educators: Cultivating Youth Digital Contribution to Community Education. IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application), 5(2), 95-115. https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.v5i2.8470

Svanberg, M., & Bergh, D. (2023). Effects of Gamification in a Teacher Education Program, 2010 to 2020. Sage Open, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231160995

Tang, Y., & Hu, J. (2022). The impact of teacher attitude and teaching approaches on student demotivation: Disappointment as a mediator. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 985859. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.985859

Treiblmaier, H., & Putz, L. M. (2020). Gamification as a moderator for the impact of intrinsic motivation: Findings from a multigroup field experiment. Learning and Motivation, 71, 101655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2020.101655

Weng, C., Tran, K. N. P., Yang, C. C., Huang, H. I., & Chen, H. (2024). Can an augmented reality-integrated gamification approach enhance vocational high school students' learning outcomes and motivation in an electronics course? Education and Information Technologies, 29, 4025–4053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11966-4

Yang, S. Z. (2023). Gamification's Effect on Academic Motivation and Progress. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 7(1), 43-48. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/7/20220709