Introduction

Educational benefits of the technologies’ arrival

The arrival of technology in education brought about a revolution in pedagogical practices. A digital world offers several possibilities in the teaching–learning processes from an organisational perspective and during the teaching action. This transformation favours educational processes by increasing student motivation, personalising learning, allowing ubiquity, and systematising specific actions. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) support including technological and communication resources in developing more equitable and adaptive educational systems (Giannini, 2023). Indeed, including those elements in higher education has been a frequent field of research throughout the last decades, especially since COVID-19. We find increased learning motivation, permanent communication between educational agents and teaching innovation when using technologies (Cevallos et al. 2020). All these changes support the fourth SDG, which focuses on providing a more accessible and relevant learning experience no matter the context or age of the learning situation (UNESCO, 2017).

This educational line’s construction encourages students’ independent and autonomous learning and shared responsibility to improve their cognitive, procedural and attitudinal development (Díaz et al. 2020). It is also possible to generate virtual spaces that endow pedagogical processes through ubiquity (Báez and Clunie, 2019). However, some research shows negative consequences of digitalising the teaching–learning process, such as considering virtual spaces as simple content repositories (Pérez-Berenguer and García-Molina, 2016). The lack of teacher training in digital media also aligns with this previous consequence, showing shortcomings in the design, implementation and evaluation of digitised methodologies (Díaz et al. 2020).

Therefore, it was essential to establish a series of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that would set a digital competence to guide teachers’ training and ensure a positive impact on the educational processes when using digital resources and tools.

Teacher digital competence

The digitisation of the teaching–learning process has become a priority for those involved in higher education (Cabero-Almenara et al. 2020). Achieving meaningful learning through technology means being flexible and critical in using appropriate media. The Council of the European Union (2018) defines teacher digital competence as using technologies to participate in life’s working, social and communicative areas. Thus, digital competence is considered a tool for teachers’ lives so that it can be developed and improved in higher education (De Pablos-Pons et al. 2019).

It is necessary to understand the use and management of digital tools and environments in which students interact to teach them about digital competence nowadays. Thus, teachers need specific skills and knowledge to link their teaching to students’ everyday lives (Sánchez-Caballé et al. 2021). Likewise, developing digital competence involves teachers’ improvement as communicative and technological professionals facing the rising education demands in the classroom related to special education needs, learning styles, and the student–teacher gap (Fernández-Batanero et al. 2022a).

Antonietti et al. (2022) argue that further research is needed on teachers’ perceived level of competence in using technology as part of their teaching, as those professionals who perceive themselves as more capable tend to use a more significant variety of technological resources according to different needs and learning situations. Thus, the European Union proposes a model for assessing the technological competencies of teachers: the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DIGCOMPEDU).

DIGCOMPEDU

Given the importance of teachers acquiring digital competence, the European Union developed the DIGCOMPEDU framework (Redecker and Punie, 2017). This model provides an understanding of skills and attitudes that professionals must display in three areas: two address the development of professional and pedagogical skills involved in digital competence (Area 1: Educators’ professional competencies with one dimension; Area 2: Educators’ pedagogic competencies with four dimensions), and a third focuses on promoting and assisting in the students’ digital competence development (Area 3: Learners’ competencies with one dimension).

Figure 1 shows these areas and their numbered dimensions.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The DIGCOMPEDU framework (Redecker and Punie, 2017, p. 8).

Full size image

For the present study, the authors will focus on area 2, where we find four dimensions: digital resources (dimension 2), teaching and learning (dimension 3), assessment (dimension 4), and empowering learners (dimension 5). The dimensions also present subdimensions that specify how to work more concretely with the topic.

Focusing on the second dimension, teachers must experiment and test by creating and reusing resources and tools that allow them to teach while generating student motivation. The third dimension leads the educator to plan and design to promote collaborative learning. The fourth dimension focuses on teachers obtaining and analysing evidence from their teaching and providing student feedback. Finally, the fifth dimension leads teachers to address students’ personalisation, accessibility and inclusion.

Regarding teachers’ digital competence from the pedagogical perspective, DIGCOMPEDU dimensions involve diversified learning that responds to a combined face-to-face and virtual teaching-learning process, linking it with constant reflection according to students’ needs and interests (Daouk et al. 2016). Therefore, DIGCOMPEDU allows teachers to know to what extent each of the dimensions is considered in their professional action and helps them to connect teaching planning (i.e., resources, variability, connectivity, accessibility) with the development of their digital competence (i.e., different levels of concreteness in the achievement of the DIGCOMPEDU dimensions) (Redecker and Punie, 2017; Zhao et al. 2021). In this way, addressing multiple elements complexifies the teacher’s preparation and the implementation of the teaching action.

Learning digital competence through teacher professional development

The preparation of higher education teachers to perform their functions within the teaching–learning process is broader than their initial training. On the contrary, it is possible throughout their lives, thanks to professional development, by searching for continuous improvement and updates to optimise their teaching practice. Regarding teacher professional development in the field of technologies, Mishra and Koehler (2006) developed the TPACK model, which proposes that teachers develop their technological skills by interweaving content and pedagogical knowledge for effective integration in the teaching process. Although research supports this model for the development of teachers’ digital competence (Drajati et al. 2023), some studies show weaknesses in terms of teacher professional development, especially in the use of information technologies, as it is more focused on technical use than on pedagogical implementation, which results in lower student learning (Fernández-Batanero et al. 2022a). They also show the need to deepen digital pedagogical knowledge to teach resources or identify students’ needs (Pérez-López and Alzás, 2023).

These training deficiencies are reflected in the teachers’ perception since many consider that they have low or medium-low digital competence, particularly in evaluation skills (Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos et al. 2022). At the same time, developing skills for the inclusion of disabled students seems to be underdeveloped by teachers (Fernández-Batanero et al. 2022b; Fernández-Cecero and Montenegro-Rueda, 2023). Thus, although the level of technical skills (access and management of information) and communication skills has an acceptable level in teacher professional development (Pérez-López and Alzás, 2023), it is essential to delve deeper into the digital pedagogical skills to know how these resources are being used to meet diversity in the class.

Experiences associated with DIGCOMPEDU and its connection to digital competence

Research addressing these two elements, DIGCOMPEDU and digital competence of higher education teachers (García-Ruiz et al. 2023; Cabero-Almenara et al. 2020), insists on generating professional training for senior, in-service and preservice teachers to help them adjust to the current society’s needs.

According to DIGCOMPEDU, among the strategies favouring teachers’ digital competence, we observe online courses, such as MOOCs, and peer-to-peer training, which places teachers in a collaborative learning environment (Betancur-Chicué and García-Varcárcel, 2022). Augmented reality, robotics, blogs and the initiation of gamified elements in class sessions seem to be considered in higher education. Likewise, creating and generating digital activities and resources motivates teachers to improve their digital competence (Cabero-Almenara et al. 2021).

However, reflection on practice and student empowerment associated with their digital competence are areas for improvement in teaching in higher education (Bilbao-Aiastui et al. 2021). Therefore, training is the backbone of this process, as teachers are encouraged to progress through area 2 of DIGCOMPEDU. Some active methodologies, such as gamification, are novel means for favouring its development (Cabero-Almenara et al. 2021). Therefore, it is crucial to delve into how gamification is a digital competence vehicle, specifically within the European reference DIGCOMPEDU framework.

Gamification in digital environments and its relationship with DIGCOMPEDU

Gamification is an active methodology defined as ‘the use of game design elements in non-game contexts’ (Deterding et al. 2011, p. 2). Different authors have categorised these game elements, showing diverse interpretations for the gamification approach (Klock et al. 2016; Werbach and Hunter, 2012). Toda et al. (2019) succeeded in developing a consensual taxonomy for education purposes among the scientific community (Denden et al. 2023; Wibisono et al. 2023). The benefits of technologies allow gamified pedagogical processes through diverse applications, access to large amounts of information, immediacy of users’ actions, visualisation of audiovisual material, and interweaving all these elements in a single interface (Koivisto and Hamari, 2019). Thus, gamification becomes a robust framework for systematically observing which digital skills teachers put into practice when designing their ICT-mediated teaching actions to analyse their strengths and weaknesses (Martín-Párraga et al. 2022; Zhernovnykova et al. 2020).

Developing gamified processes in digital environments can show teachers’ ability to develop DIGCOMPEDU’s categories. Concerning the second and third dimensions of this framework (digital resources and teaching and learning), the study by Argueta-Velázquez and Ramírez-Montoya (2017) integrated a gamified system with the presentation of short videos, infographics, and open educational resources (OER) in a MOOC that raised the course completion rate. Aligned with MOOCs, Aparicio et al. (2018) conducted a comparative study between non-gamified and gamified environments, demonstrating that the latter increased student satisfaction, establishing gamification as the most decisive factor for the success of the MOOC by fostering the students’ playful engagement with the course content. On the other hand, regarding the second (digital resources), third (teaching and learning), and fifth (student empowerment) DIFCOMPEDU’s dimensions, Domínguez et al. (2013) created a gamified platform in which they sought student autonomy in their learning by offering a detailed description of activities in an individual competitive environment to achieve badges. However, the assessment was complex as it was set through screenshots, which made the immediate feedback challenging to develop. Finally, more focused on the fifth dimension (learner empowerment), Hassan et al. (2021) created a virtual learning environment that personalised student learning paths, resulting in increased motivation and reduced course dropout rates.

Considering the previous background, we conducted a systematic review based on the PRISMA protocol to analyse which dimensions of the DIGCOMPEDU framework teachers develop through their ICT-mediated gamified teaching and its implications for the teaching–learning processes.

Methods

The study describes the aspects of teachers’ digital competence achieved in gamified classroom experiences in higher education, specifically when information and communication technologiesFootnote 1 (ICT) are implemented in gamified experiences using digital pedagogical resources, and, on the other hand, aim to deepen and reflect on the pedagogical implications of our findings.

Based on the above, this paper poses the following research questions:

RQ1: Which dimensions of the pedagogical competencies of the DIGCOMPEDU framework are put into practice by educators when ICT-based gamified classroom actions are performed?

RQ2: Are the dimensions and subdimensions included in each dimension of the DIGCOMPEDU framework educators’ pedagogical competencies proportionally represented when ICT-mediated gamified classroom actions are developed?

RQ3: Does a possible imbalance in the representation of the DIGCOMPEDU framework elements present educational implications when ICT-mediated gamified classroom actions are developed?

Procedure, materials, and data analysis

The methodology was followed in two stages. In the first phase, the PRISMA protocol was applied to the systematic review of the literature. Subsequently, the documents were analysed qualitatively to identify the digital competence dimensions implemented when ICT-mediated gamified classroom experiences occur. In the second phase, we followed Hsieh and Shannon’s (2005) guidance to analyse teachers’ digital competence. We developed a directed content analysis using the DIGCOMPEDU as a category system (Redecker and Punie, 2017). This model was chosen because it is one of the most recognised frameworks by the scientific community to discuss teachers’ digital competence (Alarcón et al. 2020; Bilbao-Aiastui et al. 2021; Cabero-Almenara et al. 2023; Caena and Redecker, 2019).

PRISMA protocol: initial search

The DIGCOMPEDU framework was officially published in 2017 by the European Commission. However, the authors considered it important to include previous years in the review to cover more possible publications related to ICT, digital competence and gamification. Although the initial search began in January 2021 and was set for 10 years for the review (2011–2021), the authors ended the search in March 2024 for professional and personal reasons. Therefore, the review included data from 2011 to 2024, making a final time frame of 13 instead of 10 years. This decision was successful since we could find relevant contributions between 2021 and 2024, as Fig. 3 shows.

The initial search combined the terms ‘gamification’ and ‘higher education’ through Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and ERIC databases. In the next phase, the search was expanded by applying Boolean operators (AND, OR), adding other descriptors such as ‘ICT’, ‘digital competence’, ‘e-learning’, or ‘online education’. These initial search combinations yielded heterogeneous results in terms of both the number and the specificity of publications. For instance, the combination ‘gamification AND ICT’ produced many articles, yet many were not directly relevant to higher education. Conversely, the string ‘gamification AND online education’ returned a disproportionately small number of results, which lacked the depth required to address the scope of the research questions.

To optimise the search, several alternative search strings were tested to set an appropriate balance between comprehensiveness and specificity levels. These included combinations as follows:

  • ‘gamification AND ICT AND higher education’

  • ‘gamification AND digital competence AND higher education’

  • ‘gamification AND e-learning AND higher education’

  • ‘gamification AND online education AND higher education’

However, these strings generated an excessive volume of less relevant studies, resulting in few studies adequately addressing the research topic. After refining the search terms systematically, the most effective and precise combination emerged as ‘(gamification) AND (higher education)’, which resulted in a reasonable number of studies in terms of sample size, aligned with the inclusion criteria and the primary research objectives. The final accepted results in SCOPUS and WoS databases were the same articles.

To ensure the level of consensus in the screening phase, the reviewers (the authors of this paper) were trained to ensure that the level of consensus was adequate (Cohen’s Kappa > 0.8) (Cohen’s Kappa > 0.8), when training was stopped. Finally, the reviewers categorised the articles independently, and the final categorisation included articles on which both reviewers agreed.

PRISMA protocol: systematic search

The final systematic search was conducted between February 2023 and March 2024 using the Scopus database over a search interval of 13 years (from 2011 to 2024), inclusive.

Finally, the best combination of terms used was (Gamification) and ((Higher) AND (Education))) for WoS and ERIC databases, and (gamification) AND (higher PRE/0 education) for SCOPUS database (since this database uses a different boolean system). In the end, 1099 results were obtained. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for filtering results following the PICOS format are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria according to the PICOS structure.
Full size table

The screening phase was conducted after identifying the 1099 results in Scopus and WoS (886) and ERIC (213). According to the criteria, n = 663 results were discarded for the following reasons: n = 407 for not belonging to the area of Social Sciences, n = 241 for not being articles, and n = 15 for not being in the final publication stage, resulting in 436 articles. Subsequently, and after reading the title and abstract, n = 212 articles were eliminated for not being relevant to our study: n = 152 for not dealing with gamification and n = 60 for not dealing specifically with Higher Education, leaving n = 224 records selected to evaluate their eligibility. Finally, after reading the full text of the selected articles, n = 173 were not considered because they were not framed within the concept of gamification mediated by ICTs or did not meet some of the above criteria, which were not detected in the previous filtering phases. Thus, n = 51 records were included in the systematic review. Figure 2 shows a summary of the process.

Fig. 2: Work process of the sample’s planning, identification, and eligibility.
figure 2

PRISMA flow chart.

Full size image

Analysis of documentary information

The information is analysed using the directed content analysis approach (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). This analysis lets us know how teaching digital competence is implemented during ICT-mediated gamified classroom experiences. For this purpose, we have used the taxonomy proposed by the DIGCOMPEDU that categorises digital competence into three significant areas (Professional competencies, Pedagogical competencies, and Student-related competencies), which are divided into six dimensions of action. For this article, we have focused on the Pedagogical competencies area since, being classroom teaching–learning experiences, this dimension allows us to map the most highlighted aspects of digital competence in this type of experience.

Results

Scientific production on gamified classroom experiences mediated by ICT in Higher Education (2011–2024)

Table 3 shows the summary of the articles analysed. Additionally, the code assigned to each article is presented, which will serve as a reference throughout this study.

As shown in Fig. 3, scientific production on ICT-mediated gamification in higher education has increased recently, whereas in previous years, it was almost nil. Significant scientific interest arises towards this emerging relationship, as 39 of the 51 selected articles have been produced in the last 6 years. Since 2018, publications have experienced significant growth; this may be due to the publication of DIGCOMPEDU, which established a framework on digital skills and encouraged the development of educational interventions through ICT.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Frequency of publication of studies by year.

Full size image

Regarding the nature of the type of study (Fig. 4), the majority are quantitative (58.82%), mixed (23.53%) and qualitative studies (15.69%).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Percentage of studies by methodology.

Full size image

Digital competence of teachers linked to ICT-mediated gamified classroom experiences in Higher Education

The qualitative analysis provides a map of the studies’ main elements of digital competence (DIGCOMPEDU).

One of the most remarkable results is the depth of the model used (DIGCOMPEDU). Based on performance dimensions and subdimensions, the model generated a detailed description of teachers’ digital competence based on empirical evidence. This description allowed us to concretely categorise the teachers’ digital competence by a scientifically validated framework that can serve as a methodological reference in further studies.

Table 2 presents percentages showing the relationship between DIGCOMPEDU’s dimensions and the reviewed articles. The column titled F. appearance indicates the number of articles that address a particular dimension, representing the frequency with which each dimension is discussed within the reviewed studies.

Table 2 Frequency and percentage of appearance of teachers’ digital competence (dimensions and subdimensions).
Full size table

In percentage format, the column % Action shows the articles that engage with a specific dimension related to the final 51 reviewed articles. The % Dimension column represents the proportion of each dimension related to the total number of occurrences across all dimensions.

As shown in Table 2, considering the dimension results, the percentages show a prevalence of Dimension 3, with an occurrence of 42.44%. It is the most recurrent dimension in the reviewed gamified experiences, found in 4 out of 10 studies and standing around twice as high as the other dimensions. Dimension 4 (23.25%) and Dimension 2 (21.40%) are in the next place, leaving Dimension 5 in the last position, with an occurrence of 12.92%.

Regarding the results by specific subdimensions (Tables 3 and 4, see Appendix) and focusing on Dimension 2 (Digital Resources), we observe a prevalence of subdimension ‘Creating and modifying digital resources’ with a percentage of appearance of 74.5%, while very unbalanced results have been observed in the rest of subdimensions: ‘Selecting digital resources’ and ‘Managing, protecting and sharing digital resources’ with a percentage of appearance of 25.5% and 13.7% respectively.

Regarding the results in Dimension 3, focusing on its subdimensions (see Table 2), 96.1% percentage of appearance was obtained in ‘Teaching’, 52% in the ‘Self-regulated learning’ section, 37.3% in ‘Collaborative learning’ and 35.3% in ‘Guidance’.

Focusing on Dimension 4 sections, the results point out a medium-low frequency of occurrence, related explicitly to the subdimensions of ‘Assessment strategies’ and ‘Feedback and planning’, being the most frequently found in the studies with a percentage of occurrence of 49.0% and 47.1% respectively. Behind these results, the subdimension ‘Analysing evidence’ is found, whose low percentage is remarkable (27.5%).

Finally, the results observed in actions linked to Dimension 5 show a medium-low appearance percentage, as in Dimension 4. The most present subdimensions were ‘Actively engaging learners’ (41.2%) and ‘Differentiation and personalisation’ (19.6%). The ‘Accessibility and Inclusion’ subdimension presents a very low percentage of occurrence (7.8%).

The focus on accessibility and inclusion through gamified strategies was found in Grivokostopoulou et al. (2019), Poce (2020), Rincón-Flores et al. (2020) and Tsabary et al. (2019) studies. Points in common related to making the experience accessible, personal and affordable were (a) providing an immersive digital environment, avoiding structural and physical barriers when the gamification was developed, (b) generating personalised feedback regarding the student’s progress, which was related to having collected individualised exercises, (c) adapting the students’ work schedule for a flexible plan facing deadlines and interaction into the gamified environment and (d) using open access materials and environments, such as MOOCs, regarding the transference and dissemination of the experience.

Discussion

RQ1: Which dimensions of the pedagogical competencies of the DIGCOMPEDU framework are put into practice by educators when ICT-based gamified classroom actions are performed?

Regarding RQ1, to explore whether it is possible to identify common elements in teachers’ digital competence (DIGCOMPEDU) when digitalised and gamified classroom actions are developed, in our first approximation, teachers focus on their digital competence, especially for those strategies connected to teaching–learning. At a lower level, we find their digital competence related to evaluation or feedback experiences, applying digital tools, or personalising and individualising the learning process. It is striking that key aspects historically related to digital competence, such as using technologies to facilitate communication and offer personalised itineraries (Arancibia et al. 2020; Cevallos et al. 2020), happen in such a small proportion of the studies.

The analysis shows that teachers reduced the technological component to include a digitalised space to host gamified processes, such as point systems and rewards. These findings are aligned with Pérez-Berenguer and García-Molina’s study (2016), which showed that virtual spaces are mainly used as repositories rather than pedagogical environments. Likewise, a focus is presented on dimension 2 of the DIGCOMPEDU, understood as the knowledge to use and transfer information to digital platforms (i.e., Moodle, Kahoot).

RQ2: Are the dimensions and subdimensions included in each dimension of the DIGCOMPEDU framework educators’ pedagogical competencies proportionally represented when ICT-mediated gamified classroom actions are developed?

RQ2 sought to determine the proportionality in representing DIGCOMPEDU frameworks’ elements in gamified classroom actions mediated by ICTs. According to the results in dimension 2 (Digital Resources), when gamified experiences are developed, teachers prioritise putting into practice their digital competence linked to using these technologies to create and modify their content rather than searching for similar external content made by other teachers. Although not negative, this fact points out the possible failure of governments and educational institutions to create a digital green culture by creating open educational resource banks (OER) and the commitment to educational digital sustainability.

Concerning the results in dimension 3 (Teaching and Learning), teachers can use their digital competence to design and implement gamified experiences using ICT, demonstrating a high level of mastery. However, the low percentage observed in subdimension 3.3 (‘Collaborative Learning’) indicates gaps in effective student collaboration in gamified digital environments. This result may be due to a lack of awareness about the benefits of collaborative learning, inadequate time to foster peer relationships, or a lack of digital competence training for students (Appavoo et al. 2019; Meng et al. 2024). On the other hand, gamified experiences present a low level of guidance and support in learning (35.3%), which suggests, aligned with dimension 5 (‘Empowering Learners’), that teachers do not personalise the teaching regarding their students’ characteristics during the gamification. Thus, they do not consider using digital tools to monitor students and enable the adaptation of the educational process to their student groups.

The results focused on dimension 4 (Evaluation and feedback) show a medium-low frequency of occurrence, with ‘Feedback and Decision Making’ and ‘Evaluation Strategies’ being the most frequently found subdimensions. The percentage of the subdimension ‘Analytical and Evidence of Learning’ differs from other sections due to its significantly lower values. These results are aligned with the Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos et al. (2022) study, which showed that teachers perceive themselves as having a low level of competence when using digital tools for assessment processes.

Regarding the care and treatment of data protection, our study shows that teachers do not prioritise this element during gamified and ICT-mediated experiences, which García-Peñalvo (2021) explains would guarantee ethically designed teaching practices. If we focus on the collection of analytics as evidence of learning, this point is not sufficiently addressed in our study’s sample. This lack of evidence generates uncertainty about how to improve student engagement. Some authors point out the need to significantly analyse their teaching practice, similar to self-evaluation, by collecting data since learning analytics are tools for improving teachers’ digital competence and professional actions when teachers revise, check and re-think what they had planned and what finally happened (Tzimas and Demetriadis, 2021).

Lastly, the results observed for specific actions linked to dimension 5, ‘Empowering Students’, converge with those found in dimension 3 and question some initial expectations. The studies show poor personalisation or individual training itineraries for students’ needs. Similarly, the low results associated with subdimension 5.1, the least present category, show that attention to diversity (i.e., accessibility and inclusion) continues to be an objective instead of a reality in the classroom. This finding is aligned with the teachers’ perception of the difficulty of working with diversity and technologies in the classroom (Fernández-Batanero et al. 2020; Fernández-Batanero et al. 2022b; Fernández-Cecero and Montenegro-Rueda, 2023). Our results show a repetition of common design flaws: the standardisation and homogenisation of teaching.

There is an apparent lack of attention to the accessibility of the content, not only in higher education, but it is a premise for teaching practice at other education levels (CAST, 2024). Therefore, addressing the inclusive nature of technological tools is relevant for future research. Despite the amplifying power of coding and designing adaptive activities or classroom experiences to favour students’ inclusion, regardless of their characteristics, it seems not to be considered a priority in teaching planning. Creating diverse learning itineraries that include a heterogeneous process, addressing disabilities, personal characteristics, or learning difficulties, would be the beginning of the expected improvement in this area of DIGCOMPEDU.

Exploring why this dimension of the DIGCOMPEDU shows such low percentages by university faculties, research suggests that there continues to be a lack of teacher training and, therefore, less awareness of this issue (Baldiris-Navarro et al. 2016; Bartolomé et al. 2018). As several authors propose (Collins et al. 2019; Nieminen, 2024), betting on more robust training in the planning, design, and evaluation of gamified and ICT-mediated experiences would improve the level of teachers’ digital competence, helping them to feel more confident to ensure an inclusive environment for their students.

RQ3: Does a possible imbalance in the representation of the DIGCOMPEDU framework elements present educational implications when ICT-mediated gamified classroom actions are developed?

Finally, concerning RQ 3, the implications of an imbalance in the representation of DIGCOMPEDU elements during gamified actions through ICTs, we can highlight some issues.

Concerning dimension 3, and especially about the low results in subdimensions 3.2 (Guidance) and 3.3 (Collaborative learning), key implications for student learning are identified. Guidance from the teacher during the educational process is essential for addressing doubts and supporting the learning process, contributing to the expansion of students’ knowledge (An et al. 2022). Furthermore, digital collaboration has proven to be an effective method for increasing student satisfaction and improving academic performance (Acosta-Corporán et al., 2022). Collaborative work among students enhances their motivation, allowing them to learn cooperatively, resolve doubts together, and improve relationships in the classroom.

A direct consequence of dimension 4 is the negative impact on student performance when the evaluation process is not transparent and complete. Analysing evidence related to subdimension 4.1 allows the teacher to assess students’ academic performance and create a dynamic plan that adjusts to the needs identified during the teaching process to improve student learning. On the other hand, the lack of feedback limits the evaluation to a simple grade. Teacher feedback is essential in the educational process, as it enables students to identify their strengths and areas for improvement during the learning process. Qualitative assessment provides students with information about the competencies they must focus on to improve (Morris et al. 2021).

Regarding dimension 5, there is a tendency to standardise the learning pathway, which excludes many students who require diverse approaches to achieve the expected curricular competencies on equal terms. The lack of personalisation in the learning process creates knowledge gaps and disengagement, as it fails to connect with the diversity in the classroom, leading to dropout (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, 2023). This situation aligns with the fourth SDG promoted by UNESCO (2017), which advocates for equitable and quality education for all individuals throughout their lives.

Recommendations and future lines of research

Considering the previous discussion, several implications could be addressed regarding teachers’ use of technologies by combining them with a gamified learning experience. We propose some recommendations to work on the identified weaknesses and possible directions to reinforce teachers’ professional development on the issue.

  • Providing feedback is a personalised formative assessment technique that presents empirical evidence on keeping the students engaged in their learning process. Additionally, gamified evaluation techniques help teachers plan long-term evaluations to avoid numerical grades and immediate feedback, which creates an excessive workload for them nowadays (Çekiç and Bakla, 2021; Cigdem et al. 2024).

  • The personalised feedback links to the challenging personalisation of the ICT-mediated process in gamified class situations. Some inclusive pedagogical frameworks, such as the universal design for learning (UDL), could assist teachers in their planning. The UDL (CAST, 2024) presents a scientific proposal regarding different ways to engage students from the emotional and motivational sides to present content by combining different formats, and to allow students to express themselves in diverse ways. Therefore, the UDL is a professional development resource considering its role in training teachers, schools and higher education institutions. Using the UDL, the gamified experience becomes more accessible and could increase the development of teachers’ pedagogical strategies.

  • It seems that a ‘digital green culture’ still needs to work efficiently. Institutional and policy initiatives could promote a more sustainable approach to using gamified tools and ICT resources to help teachers be digitally competent (Lai and Peng, 2019). However, overloading teachers and practitioners to improve their digital competence by themselves presents a huge responsibility if we consider many professional tasks developed in their routine, such as coping with bureaucracy. A national or regional policy regarding any initiative in this line (i.e., creating teachers’ networks, having spaces to share and exchange ideas, training workshops, and OERs) would enhance teachers’ digital competence by discovering new resources and re-using and transforming their creations.

  • An important implication derived from privileging individual learning over collective learning is that educators still work non-connected with their students (and future citizens who will need to work and think with others) (Slamet and Meng, 2025). Discussions and debates mediated by ICT tools, joint decision-making processes when participating in rankings and scorings, or case studies that challenge students’ critical thinking, could be alternatives when using ICT and gamification as teaching approaches (Baena-Morales et al, 2020).

  • Regarding data protection and learning analytics, we point out gamification as a helpful methodological approach to improve teachers’ digital competence by considering students’ performance rates and mapping the progression of students’ answers to the teacher’s strategies. Institutional repositories and ethical committees enhance this side of the teachers’ digital competence.

Looking at the future of this study, a potential direction for the research would be to explore the DIGCOMPEDU dimensions’ interactions in gamified contexts. Analysing the cross-dimensional relationships could provide a more comprehensive understanding of how teachers’ digital competencies are developed and reinforced within gamified educational settings. Additionally, it would be particularly significant to investigate the impact of contextual factors, i.e., institutional, cultural, and regional ones, in developing digital competencies. These factors could significantly shape the effectiveness of gamified teaching practices.

Addressing the interplay of dimensions and the role of contextual influences is a second action line for the authors to offer context-specific insights. We also encourage examining what tools and platforms can effectively support DIGCOMPEDU’s dimensions. Since this study does not cover a comparative analysis within its research objectives, it is proposed to investigate possible patterns in the development of digital competence by using gamification in the academic field where the study was conducted.

Conclusions

This study has revealed that, framed by the DIGCOMPEDU framework, teachers prioritise digital competencies related to teaching and learning in gamified ICT-mediated actions. In contrast, those competencies related to assessment, feedback, and personalised learning are significantly less developed. These results suggest strategies to standardise learning pathways, overlooking the potential of ICT to address individual needs and foster inclusive educational environments. Aligned with it, teachers prefer creating their digital content rather than using open educational resources, reflecting the absence of a sustainable digital culture promoted by higher education institutions.

The study presents some imbalances when combining gamification with the teaching process and improving teachers’ digital competence, which is connected to significant implications for future research. It is highlighted that the lack of adequate planning and personalisation in gamified experiences can affect student engagement, create learning gaps, and even contribute to school dropout, jeopardising the international sustainable development goals to make education equitable and inclusive in higher education. Moreover, while systematic reviews of existing literature provide valuable insights, it is possible that relying solely on published studies may not fully cover all classroom practices. Future research could explore other publications to complete this study’s results.