Teaching ICT in higher education faces increasing challenges related to promoting active, meaningful, and student-centered learning for learners immersed in digital environments. Several studies have demonstrated that traditional approaches focused on passive content transmission are insufficient to meet the learning preferences and expectations of contemporary students (Aguilera Meza et al., 2020; Arias and Mon, 2022). Consequently, there has been a growing emphasis on adopting innovative pedagogical approaches that foster autonomy, participation, and collaborative knowledge construction in hybrid and online settings (Azogue-Punina and Barrera-Erreyes, 2020; Londoño and Rojas, 2020). Recent reviews have further highlighted that the integration of motivational digital resources—particularly gamification—can enhance student engagement and reduce disengagement across educational levels (Faure-Carvallo et al., 2022; Game et al., 2024).

Over the past decade, gamification has emerged as one of the most influential strategies in educational innovation, given its potential to integrate game design principles for pedagogical purposes and stimulate intrinsic motivation, sustained engagement, and self-regulated learning (Majuri et al., 2018; Dreimane, 2019; García-Martín and García-Sánchez, 2020). These benefits are particularly evident in technology-related subjects, where progressive challenges, levels, and immediate feedback enable students to interact with complex content in engaging and iterative ways (Hong et al., 2024; Sangucho et al., 2020). Bibliometric studies confirm this growing academic interest, showing a sharp increase in publications on gamification in higher education between 2020 and 2025, yet revealing persistent theoretical and methodological inconsistencies that limit systematic application (Guerrero-Alcedo et al., 2022; Magpusao, 2024).

Empirical evidence consistently supports gamification’s capacity to strengthen essential cognitive and digital competencies, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration (Guanoluisa et al., 2022; Mamekova et al., 2021; Navarro-Mateos et al., 2024). However, its effectiveness depends heavily on the coherence between gamified elements and intended learning outcomes. This has led to an important conceptual distinction between superficial gamification, primarily focused on extrinsic rewards (points, badges, leaderboards), and meaningful gamification, which nurtures intrinsic motivation through narrative, autonomy, challenge, and continuous feedback (Munblit et al., 2022; Koivisto and Hamari, 2019). While the former can foster short-term engagement, the latter promotes deep and sustained learning aligned with constructivist and self-regulated learning principles (Werbach and Hunter, 2020).

The theoretical foundations of gamification can be explained through well-established motivational and learning frameworks. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ryan and Deci, 2020) posits that intrinsic motivation emerges when individuals experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Gamified environments that provide freedom of choice, clear goals, and meaningful feedback can satisfy these psychological needs, resulting in sustained engagement and satisfaction (Van Roy and Zaman, 2015). Similarly, Flow Theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) explains optimal learning as a balance between challenge and skill that leads to immersive and enjoyable experiences. Game mechanics such as progressive challenges, immediate feedback, and goal clarity are particularly effective in fostering flow states (Koivisto and Hamari, 2019). Complementary frameworks, including Goal Orientation Theory and Expectancy-Value Theory, emphasize how achievement goals and perceived task value shape persistence and learning outcomes (Dichev and Dicheva, 2017).

Despite this solid theoretical base, the literature still reflects a significant methodological gap: the absence of validated criteria to guide the selection and prioritization of gamification elements according to learning objectives, disciplinary context, and student profiles (Carbajal et al., 2022; Fitria, 2022; Pérez and Muñoz, 2024; Sánchez, 2022). This gap limits comparability across studies and hinders the development of coherent, evidence-based instructional designs. Therefore, there is a growing need for structured methodologies capable of integrating expert judgment to build validated and contextually grounded frameworks for gamified learning design.

The Delphi method offers a robust and systematic approach to addressing this need, as it enables the aggregation of expert knowledge and the establishment of consensus on emerging educational practices through iterative rounds of consultation and controlled feedback (Beiderbeck et al., 2021). Its iterative and evidence-driven nature makes it particularly suitable for identifying and validating design principles in technology-mediated learning contexts (Oxley et al., 2025; Ramírez Chávez and Ramírez Torres, 2024; Rüetschi et al., 2022; Sablatzky, 2022).

Accordingly, the aim of this study is to reach expert consensus, through a modified Delphi method, on the most relevant gamification elements for ICT education in higher education. The findings are expected to provide a validated instructional design framework that integrates motivational theory with pedagogical innovation and supports the effective implementation of gamified learning experiences in university-level ICT courses.

The analysis derived from the two Delphi rounds allowed the identification of the most relevant gamification elements for teaching ICT in higher education. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods enabled the establishment of solid expert consensus regarding the elements, strategies, and conditions that enhance the pedagogical effectiveness of gamification.

During the first round, experts openly proposed the elements they considered most important for the instructional design of ICT courses. The responses were grouped into six main categories: challenges or quests, points and rewards, badges, leaderboards, progression levels, and identification avatars. Challenges and quests were mentioned by 11 out of 12 experts (91.7%), followed by points and rewards (75%), badges and leaderboards (58.3%), levels (50%), and avatars (25%). This first phase provided the basis for developing the structured instrument used in the second round, which focused on the elements with the highest initial consensus.

In the second round, experts quantitatively assessed the relevance, clarity, and impact of each gamification element using a 5-point Likert scale. Challenges and quests achieved the highest consensus (83% agreement; M = 4.6; SD = 0.5; IQR = 1.0; W = 0.66), followed by points and rewards (67%; M = 4.2; SD = 0.7), while badges and leaderboards reached moderate acceptance levels (58%; M = 4.0–4.1; W = 0.60). Levels (50%) and avatars (25%) showed lower homogeneity, reflecting differences in their applicability across technological contexts. The overall Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W = 0.74) indicated a high level of agreement among experts, with values ranging from 0.27 to 0.90 depending on the domain. Additionally, IQR ≤ 1 was observed in 85% of the items, and the average CV (0.22) confirmed low dispersion and high stability in the ratings.

The strongest consensus emerged in domains related to transversal competencies, student motivation, and active participation, with agreement levels ranging between 83 and 100%. In contrast, domains associated with technological tools and specific strategies exhibited higher variability (W between 0.27–0.43), reflecting the influence of contextual factors and resource availability in gamification implementation.

Table 1 summarizes the results by research question (RQ1–RQ8), integrating the percentage of agreement and Kendall’s W for each thematic domain. All values have been verified to ensure consistency with the Delphi standards established in this study (≥80% agreement, IQR ≤ 1, CV ≤ 0.30, W ≥ 0.60).

The qualitative results, analyzed with ATLAS.ti 9, reinforced the quantitative findings by identifying three cross-cutting themes: curricular coherence, understood as the need to integrate gamification in a planned manner aligned with learning objectives; immediate feedback and autonomy, as key elements to sustain motivation and a sense of achievement; and technological contextualization, referring to the selection of tools suited to institutional resources and student characteristics.

Overall, these findings confirm that gamification is perceived as an effective pedagogical strategy to increase participation and engagement in ICT courses, particularly when applied with formative intent and supported by teacher guidance. However, the results also reveal a lack of consensus regarding the most appropriate technological platforms and specific strategies, underscoring the need for complementary empirical studies to assess their impact in diverse educational contexts.

It is important to clearly distinguish between specific gamification strategies and technological tools, as both domains exhibited low levels of consensus for fundamentally different reasons. In this study, specific strategies (W ≈ 0.28) refer to pedagogical and instructional design decisions, such as the use of progressive challenges, narrative structures, feedback mechanisms, and formative assessment, whereas technological tools (W ≈ 0.27) denote concrete digital platforms and systems (e.g., Kahoot, Genially, Moodle plugins).

Although both domains showed relatively low concordance, the variability observed in specific strategies reflects the pedagogical diversity inherent to ICT courses, which differ substantially in learning objectives, task complexity, and instructional approaches. In contrast, the heterogeneity associated with technological tools is primarily driven by contextual, infrastructural, and institutional factors, as well as by the rapid evolution and obsolescence of digital technologies in the ICT field. This distinction clarifies that low consensus does not indicate limited relevance, but rather highlights the context-dependent nature of gamification in technological education.

Figure 1 presents a visual synthesis of the consensus hierarchy across gamification domains identified in the second Delphi round. The x-axis represents the percentage of expert agreement, while the y-axis indicates Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W). Bubble size reflects the relative strength of consensus, and color coding differentiates agreement levels: dark blue indicates high consensus (W ≥ 0.60), light blue represents moderate consensus, and green denotes domains with low consensus (W < 0.40). The figure clearly illustrates that transversal competencies, student motivation, and feedback achieved the highest levels of agreement, whereas technological tools and specific strategies exhibit greater variability, reinforcing the need for contextualized and flexible approaches to gamification in ICT education.

The modified Delphi results demonstrate strong expert consensus regarding the potential of gamification to strengthen key cognitive and socio-emotional competencies such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaboration. High levels of agreement (≥83%) and concordance (W ≥ 0.66) confirm the robustness of expert perceptions. Nevertheless, variability persists concerning the use of technological platforms and instructional strategies, highlighting the need to establish context-specific selection criteria and empirically validate their effectiveness across different educational environments.

The results of this modified Delphi study confirm that gamification, when systematically integrated and aligned with curricular objectives, constitutes an effective pedagogical strategy for strengthening ICT education in higher education. The experts prioritized progressive challenges, immediate feedback, rewards, and narrative, elements widely associated in recent literature with increased motivation, persistence, and meaningful learning (Majuri et al., 2018; Di Nardo et al., 2024; Pérez and Muñoz, 2024).

From a theoretical perspective, the gamification elements that achieved the highest levels of consensus can be interpreted through the lenses of SDT and Flow Theory. In particular, progressive challenges and clear rules are directly linked to the psychological need for autonomy, as they allow students to perceive control over their learning process and to make informed decisions within a structured framework. Likewise, immediate feedback and reward systems contribute to satisfying the need for competence by providing continuous performance-related information and reinforcing perceptions of personal efficacy.

Complementarily, the gradual progression of challenges and the incorporation of narrative elements foster conditions associated with Flow, especially the balance between challenge level and student skills, as well as immersion in the learning activity. In the context of ICT education, where learning tasks frequently involve complex problem-solving and iterative processes, these theoretical principles are particularly relevant, as they support sustained concentration, reduce frustration, and promote deeper and more meaningful learning experiences.

The strong agreement regarding progressive challenges and immediate feedback is consistent with Faure-Carvallo et al. (2022), who emphasize their contribution to learner autonomy and self-regulation. Likewise, consensus on the use of rewards and badges aligns with Muñoz and Gasca-Hurtado (2023), highlighting their positive influence on perceived achievement and intrinsic motivation. These results corroborate international reviews supporting the effectiveness of meaningful gamification over superficial gamification, as it promotes emotional connection and the internalization of learning goals (Munblit et al., 2022; Van Roy and Zaman, 2015).

Although elements such as challenges and feedback are recognized as cross-cutting principles of gamification, they take on particular relevance in the specific context of ICT teaching. Unlike other disciplines, ICT learning is characterized by open-ended problem solving, iterative experimentation, and constant error management, especially in tasks related to programming, system design, and the use of digital tools. In this context, gamified challenges not only act as motivational mechanisms, but also as structures that organize cognitive progression and facilitate the transfer of knowledge to practical situations. Similarly, immediate feedback is especially critical in ICT, as it allows students to identify failures, debug processes, and adjust strategies in real time, reducing the frustration associated with technical complexity. These findings suggest that, although the principles of gamification are universal, their effectiveness and pedagogical significance are intensified in technological disciplines where cognitive load and complex problem solving are central. In this sense, the contribution of the study lies not only in confirming general principles of gamification, but also in demonstrating how these principles relate to the cognitive and procedural demands of ICT learning.

The experts’ open comments complement the quantitative interpretation of the results. For example, several participants pointed out that “challenges should be increased progressively to avoid student frustration,” while others emphasized that “immediate feedback is key in ICT, as students need to identify errors quickly in order to continue advancing.” Likewise, some experts pointed out that “there is no single platform that works in all contexts,” highlighting the need to adapt technological tools to institutional conditions and the type of training activity. These qualitative contributions reinforce the interpretation of the levels of consensus and add greater richness to the analysis of the Delphi process.

Nevertheless, variability in expert opinions regarding academic performance echoes prior studies suggesting that motivational gains do not always translate into higher grades (Lampropoulos and Sidiropoulos, 2024; Díaz et al., 2024). This reinforces the role of instructional design and teacher mediation as determining factors for pedagogical impact (Navarro-Espinosa et al., 2022; Hernández-Fernández et al., 2020). Experts agreed that gamification amplifies engagement and comprehension when framed within a coherent learning design, rather than functioning as an isolated motivational technique.

The results of this modified Delphi study allowed for the identification and consensus on the most relevant gamification elements for teaching ICT in higher education. The 12-member expert panel agreed that gamification can generate significant pedagogical benefits when it is strategically integrated into the curriculum and aligned with clearly defined learning objectives. A strong consensus was achieved regarding its potential to enhance key competencies such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaboration—skills considered essential in contemporary higher education.

Experts prioritized challenges, immediate feedback, and clear rules as central components for fostering motivation and active student engagement. These findings confirm that meaningful gamification, grounded in autonomy and engagement, is more effective than reward-based or superficial approaches. However, variability was observed in perceptions of its direct impact on academic performance, which aligns with previous studies and underscores the need for further empirical research to clarify these effects.

A key finding was the lack of consensus regarding a single technological platform for gamified implementation. The coefficient of concordance (W = 0.27–0.43) revealed considerable heterogeneity in tool selection, indicating that technological suitability depends largely on contextual factors such as institutional infrastructure and the digital competence of both teachers and students. Thus, the study proposes adopting context-sensitive selection criteria rather than pursuing universal technological solutions.

Methodologically, the modified Delphi design proved rigorous and effective for structuring and refining expert opinions, achieving statistically consistent consensus levels (overall W = 0.74; IQR ≤ 1; CV ≤ 0.30) and high inter-coder reliability (κ = 0.82). The triangulation of quantitative and qualitative analyses provided interpretive depth and reinforced the robustness of the findings.

Overall, this study delivers a validated reference framework to guide the design and implementation of gamified learning experiences in higher education, particularly in ICT instruction. Future research should expand the expert sample, compare platform effectiveness, and conduct experimental and longitudinal studies to empirically validate the impact of gamification on motivation, learning, and academic achievement. By integrating motivational theory with instructional design, this study contributes to a more coherent, evidence-based, and practice-oriented understanding of gamification as a transformative pedagogical strategy in higher education.