ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Page 985
www.rsisinternational.org
Gamifying Dry Subjects: Exploring Educator Readiness using
Korthagen’s Onion Model
*1
Norazamimah binti Bogal,
2
Nurul Aida binti Harun,
3
Surya binti Ahmad Royali,
4
Masliana binti Tamrin
1,2,3,4
Business and Management Faculty, UiTM Melaka Alor Gajah Campus
*Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.924ILEIID00111
Received: 23 September 2025; Accepted: 30 September 2025; Published: 01 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Dry subjects are often taught through lectures and static case studies, resulting in low student engagement and
surface-level understanding. The challenge is that students struggle to connect theoretical concepts with real-
world applications, especially in early-stage courses. Unfortunately, these subjects are often essential to a true
understanding of the discipline, it is the fundamentals that they need to well verse before taking other
intermediate or advance subjects. This study addresses how the successful implementation of gamification
depends not only on instructional design but also on the readiness of educator. This conceptual paper explores
the application of Korthagen’s Onion Model as a framework to understand and support educator’s internal and
external dimensions in relation to gamification.
Keywords: (Gamification, Dry subjects, Korthagen’s Onion Model, Educator readiness, Pedagogy)
INTRODUCTION
Every discipline has foundational courses that students often dismiss as dry and inaccessible, yet mastery of
these fundamentals is essential for advancing to intermediate and advanced subjects. Information overload
from purely theoretical content and technical jargon can overwhelm students before they grasp core concepts.
When students cannot see how abstract principles connect to their experiences, the subject material feels
irrelevant and obscure. Addressing this disconnect is urgent, transforming dry subjects into engaging
experiences can unlock deeper learning and sustain student motivation (McKendree et al., 2019; Mahu, 2025)
Despite extensive evidence that gamification enhances engagement and promotes active learning (McKendree
et al., 2019; Ates & Kölemen, 2024), its application in traditionally dry subjects remains limited. Students
continue to struggle with surface-level understanding and fail to connect theory with practice. Moreover, while
gamification shows promise for immersive learning, the success of these innovations depends heavily on
educators’ readiness to adopt them (Ates & Kölemen, 2024; Valverde et al., 2024). Understanding the
theoretical dimensions of this readiness is critical for ensuring that gamified interventions achieve their full
potential. The literature has yet to fully explore how prepared educators feel to integrate gamification into their
pedagogy, especially when balancing new design demands against existing workloads. This gap encompasses
both extrinsic factors (institutional support and resource availability) and intrinsic factors (educators’ beliefs,
self-efficacy, and identity) (Palha & Matic, 2023; Kuo & Kuo, 2024; Huang et al., 2025).
Drawing on Korthagen’s Onion Model, this study provides a holistic framework for understanding educator
development in the context of gamified learning. The aims are threefold: (1) to map educators’ readiness across
the model’s six layers, (2) to identify the factors that influence educators’ adoption of this approach and (3) to
examine the most strongly factors (mission, identity, beliefs, competencies, behaviors, environment) influence
their adoption decisions.
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Page 986
www.rsisinternational.org
LITERATURE REVIEW
Gamification in Education
Gamification has gained popularity as a relevant and innovative pedagogical tool among educators in recent
years (Mora et al., 2017; Behl et al., 2022). Its usage increased dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic
(Lampropoulos et al., 2022). It is the application of game-based mechanics, aesthetics, and game thinking in
non-gaming settings. Gamification is intended to address issues such as low interest, low engagement, a lack of
motivation, and the need to encourage specific behaviors in traditional teaching and learning. Because gaming
is enjoyable, game-like features can be added to make dry subjects more engaging.
In addition, game based mechanics such as points, badges, and leaderboards used to transform conventional
learning environments into more interactive and enjoyable experiences (Şenocak et al., 2021; Bayrak & Kaban,
2024). This pedagogical approach also aims to cultivate students' intrinsic motivation and promote
collaborative learning through real-time feedback and competitive, team-based activities. Research indicates
that gamified approaches can significantly improve long-term memory retention and reduce academic anxiety
by encouraging friendly competition and fostering supportive classroom environments (Hitchens & Tulloch,
2018). This is particularly relevant for subjects perceived as "dry" or challenging, where traditional methods
often struggle to maintain student interest and engagement (Khaldi et al., 2023).
Teacher Readiness and Technology Adoption
The integration of of gamification often encounters varying levels of digital literacy and readiness among
educators (Desgourdes et al., 2025). University professors frequently acknowledge a deficit in their training
regarding educational gamification techniques (Vergara et al., 2023). This highlights a critical need for
comprehensive professional development to introduces technological tools as well as to apply it within sound
pedagogical frameworks (Desgourdes et al., 2025). Furthermore, while artificial intelligence implementation in
education initially stimulates learning motivation, this "novelty effect" often diminishes over time, requiring
educators to integrate additional strategies to sustain student engagement (Ren & Wu, 2025). This necessitates
ongoing support and strategic planning to enable teachers to effectively incorporate technology, overcoming
technical challenges and bridging digital divides experienced by some students (Ren & Wu, 2025). Similarly,
despite an elevated interest among Italian secondary school teachers in gamification for enhanced student
interaction, substantial barriers such as time constraints, lack of thematic knowledge, insufficient funding, and
a tenuous link between specific content and gamified didactic approaches persist (Malvasi & Moreno, 2022).
These challenges are further compounded by a noticeable gap between educators' strong interest in
professional development focused on innovative technologies like AI and the actual quality and availability of
such training programs (Alshorman, 2024; Zhang & Iilisko, 2025).
Korthagen’s Onion Model
It provides a hierarchical framework for analyzing professional development, ranging from superficial
behaviors to deeply held core beliefs and identity. This model posits that effective professional learning must
transcend superficial adjustments in behavior or skills, delving into underlying convictions and personal
mission to achieve sustainable change (Duan & Wei, 2024). When applied to educator readiness for
gamification, Korthagen's model suggests that merely providing technical training (environment/behavior
levels) is insufficient; sustainable adoption requires addressing deeper levels such as competencies, beliefs,
identity, and mission.
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Page 987
www.rsisinternational.org
Figure 1 Layers of Korthagen’s Onion Model
Source: Korthagen (2004)
METHODOLOGY
This conceptual study adopts a quantitative method approach to explore educator readiness for integrating
gamification into business management education. Business law, management, human resources are all
foundational subjects that are typically delivered through lectures and case studies, resulting in low
engagement and surface level understanding. A structured questionnaire will be developed based on the six
layers of Korthagen’s model. The survey will be distributed online to 200 lecturers from the Business and
Management Faculty of UiTM across the country. Then data will be analysed descriptively to identify patterns
of readiness across the six Onion layers.
DISCUSSION
When considering how to apply gamification in educational contexts, there are instructors' personal challenges
to consider and perspectives to understand, particularly for 'dry' subjects (Zhao et al., 2021). This deep
complexity entails pedagogues having to consider supportive frameworks relating to teachers’ perceptions,
belief systems and professional identities (Ateş & Kölemen, 2024). Korthagen's Onion Model demonstrates
how value systems and competencies are connected to, and impact, an educators' approach to gamified
learning and how deeply they are embedded to the reluctance and challenges of gamified learning, and more
broadly to digital game-based learning. For example, some teachers' reluctance to adopt digital game-based
learning is related to game development and sharing self-efficacy and digital game technology (Palha & Matić,
2023). Also, educators' reluctance to gamified virtual reality technology is considered to relate to their
unfulfilled innovation expectations, thus the need to understand unarticulated gamification value systems. This
highlights the need for a deeply pedagogical approach to the belief systems, values and perceptions underlying
educators’ reluctance to gamify learning.
The Onion Model's concentric layers which are Environment, Behavior, Competencies, Beliefs, Identity, and
Mission, facilitate the analysis of the different components of an educator’s willingness to gamify the
curriculum. Environment and Behavior capture the contextual, environmental, and structural components to
gamification and the surrounding educator actions. The layers of the model then work down abstractly to the
educator’s thinking and motivation (Jonge et al., 2019). The model, in its totality, provides an understanding of
the educator's value system in the context of external pressures in environments where gamification of
teaching is expected. For example, institutional frameworks, support systems, and accessible technology tend
to directly define educator actions within gamified lessons (Hao et al., 2023). Identification of such structural
determinants provides insight beyond them and suggests the need to analyze the educator's contextual belief
systems regarding gamification, as well as the shaping of their identity in the teaching. Conversely, an
educator's underlying beliefs about the efficacy of gamification and their personal identity as an innovative
teacher significantly influence their sustained adoption and integration of such techniques (Lin et al., 2025)
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Page 988
www.rsisinternational.org
Implications for Educator Training
These initiatives allow educators to transcend surface-level application and engage in transformative teaching
practices. Such training should cover the integration of game mechanics into multiple disciplines, tackling
implementation challenges, and developing a reflective framework on the efficacy of gamified teaching (Palha
& Matić, 2023; Lan et al., 2024). Furthermore, training should acknowledge the varied educator experiences,
as both more and less seasoned educators, in different contexts, may tackle distinct challenges and demonstrate
different levels of game integration proficiency in digital game-based learning (Palha & Matić, 2023).
CONCLUSION
This study aimed to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding educators' readiness to adopt
gamification strategies in the Malaysian context. Using Korthagen's (2004) onion model, we identified six
factors that influence gamification use: environment, behaviour, competencies, beliefs, identity, and mission.
Future studies in educational effectiveness may consider incorporating the Technology Acceptance Model and
the Unified Theory of Technology Acceptance and Use to broaden research into the adoption of gamification
and teacher readiness (Ateş & Kölemen, 2024). This will improve our understanding of teachers' readiness to
integrate gamified learning, as well as their decision to relate concepts like perceived usefulness, perceived
ease of use, social influence, and facilitating conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge all the team members for the contribution. The authors are also grateful
for the support and resources made available by UiTM Melaka Branch, Malaysia. This research did not receive
any specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
REFERENCES
1. Alshorman, S. (2024). The Readiness to use Ai in Teaching Science: Science Teacher's Perspectives.
Journal of Baltic Science Education, 23(3), 432-448. doi:10.33225
2. Ates, H. &. (2024). Integrating theories for insight: an amalgamated model for gamified virtual reality
adoption by science teachers. Education and Information Technologies. doi:10.1007
3. Bayrak, C. &. (2024). Understanding the adoption and usage of gamified web tools by K-12 teachers in
Turkey: A structural equation model. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 24759–24781.
doi:10.1007
4. Behl, A. J. (2022). Gamification and e-learning for young learners: a systematic literature review,
bibliometric. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 176(121445).
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121445
5. Desgourdes C., C. L. (2025). Investigating the factors influencing teachers’ adoption of gamification
strategies in higher education: insights from Korthagen’s onion model. International Journal of
Educational Management, 39(1), 55-69. doi:10.1108
6. Duan, H. &. (2024). The Effects of Educational Artificial Intelligence-Powered Applications on Teachers’
Perceived Autonomy, Professional Development for Online Teaching, and Digital Burnout. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 25(3), 57. doi:10.19173
7. Hao, T. W. (2023). Unlocking potential: Systematic review the use of gamification in leadership
curriculum . Education and Information Technologies, 29, 12305-12346. doi:10.1007
8. Hitchens, M. &. (2018). A gamification design for the classroom. Interactive Technology and Smart
Education, 15(1), 28-45. doi:10.1108
9. Huang, Z. F. (2025). Research on AIGC-Integrated Design Education for Sustainable Teaching: An
Empirical Analysis Based on the TAM and TPACK Models. Sustainability, 17(5497). doi:10.3390
10. Jonge, M. W.-d. (2019). From critic to inspirer: four profiles reveal the belief system and commitment to
educational mission of medical academics. BMC Medical Education, 19(268). doi:10.1186
11. Khaldi, A. B. (2023). Gamification of e-learning in higher education: a systematic literature review. Smart
Learning Environment. doi:10.1186
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Page 989
www.rsisinternational.org
12. Korthagen, F. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach in
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77-97. doi:10.1016
13. Kuo, Y.-C. &.-T. (2024). An exploratory study of pre-service teachers’ perceptions of technological
pedagogical content knowledge of digital games. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced
Learning, 19(008). doi:10.58459
14. Lampropoulos, G. K. (2022). Augmented reality and gamification in education: a systematic literature
review of research, applications and empirical studies. Applied Sciences, 12(13), 6809.
doi:10.3390/app12136809
15. Lan, H. B. (2024). Assessing the digital competence of in-service university educators in China: A
systematic literature review . Heliyon, 10(16), e35675. doi:10.1016
16. Lin, T. Z. (2025). Effects of Technology Perceptions, Teacher Beliefs, and AI Literacy on AI Technology
Adoption in Sustainable Mathematics Education. Sustainability, 17(8), 3698. doi:10.3390
17. Mahu, R. (2025). Gamification in Project Management. Studies in Business and Economics, 20(1), 319-
339. doi:10.2478
18. Malvasi, V. &. (2022). Perception of gamification strategies in Italian secondary schools. Alteridad, 17(1),
50. doi:10.17163
19. McKendree, R. B. (2019). Games in Natural Sciences Education: Exploring the Perspectives of Secondary
School Educators. Natural Sciences Education, 48(1). doi:190005
20. Mora, A. R.-M. (2017). Gamification: a systematic review. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
29(3), 516-548. doi:10.1007/s12528-017-9150-4
21. Palha, S. &. (2023). Predisposition of In-Service Teachers to Use Game-Based Pedagogy. The Electronic
Journal of E-Learning, 21(4), 286. doi:10.34190
22. Ren, X. &. (2025). Examining Teaching Competencies and Challenges While Integrating Artificial
Intelligence in Higher Education. TechTrends, 69, 519-538. doi:10.1007
23. Şenocak, D. B. (2021). Examination of the Hexad user types and their relationships with gender, game
mode, and gamification experience in the context of open and distance learning. Online Learning, 25(4),
250-266. doi:10.24059
24. Valverde, G. J.-P. -M. (2024). Gamifying Teacher Education with FantasyClass: Effects on Attitudes
towards Physics and Chemistry among Preservice Primary Teachers. Education Sciences, 14(8), 822.
doi:10.3390
25. Vergara, D. A.‐S.‐A. (2023). Player Profiles in Science Education for Game-Based Digital Training
Actions at the University Level. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 13(11),
1663-1671. doi:10.18178
26. Zhang, W. &. (2025). AI for Enhancing English Lesson Design and Pedagogy in Chinese Middle Schools.
Proceedings of the 16th International Scientific and Practical Conference, 3, pp. 397-403. doi:10.17770
27. Zhao, D. P. (2021). An Innovative Multi-Layer Gamification Framework for Improved STEM Learning
Experience. IEEE Access, 10, 3879-3889. doi:10.1109
