Gamification,Popular Musics-Based Repertoire,and Mixed Instrumentation in Music Enrichment: A Case Study With Gifted Learners in Spain

Abstract

This study examines a gamified musical enrichment program using mixed instrumentation and a popular musics-based repertoire with students identified as having high intellectual abilities (HIA) in Spain. Forty-six participants (ages 9–16, M = 12.4) attended six Saturday sessions in Primary (n = 24) and Secondary (n = 22). Conducted in Cáceres, Extremadura, within the TalentiaCC program, the extracurricular setting enabled activities designed to encourage participation, creativity, and engagement in a culturally relevant framework. Data included observation, narrative records, audiovisual materials, and teacher reflections. Reflexive thematic analysis showed that motivation in Primary was linked to playful elements and badges, while in Secondary it was associated with autonomy and leadership. Collaboration was fostered by scaffolded roles, and creativity appeared through rhythmic-timbral variations (Primary) and improvisations with harmonic modifications (Secondary). Five design principles emerged—scaffolded roles, short narrative, moderated collaboration, adaptable repertoire, clear criteria—offering guidance for inclusive music programs and teacher education.

Keywords

high intellectual abilities gamification music education popular musics-based repertoire creativity collaboration

Introduction

Educational attention to students with high intellectual abilities (HIA) requires proposals that integrate cognitive challenge, authorship opportunities, and collaborative contexts that foster motivation and a sense of belonging. In music education, this entails creating learning environments that acknowledge diverse trajectories, enable the exploration of performative creativity, and support socio-emotional growth (Haroutounian, 2002; López-Íñiguez & McPherson, 2023).

Gamification has become a useful framework to establish clear goals, provide frequent feedback, and generate cooperation/competition dynamics, provided that it is designed with a pedagogical purpose rather than as a mere accumulation of rewards (Deterding et al., 2011; Nicholson, 2015). When aligned with authentic musical objectives, gamification can sustain participation, enhance attentional focus, and facilitate deliberate practice in ensembles (Park & Cheng, 2023). At the same time, explicit links between gamification mechanics—missions, badges, and role assignment—and students’ intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation are emphasized to clarify how these dynamics shaped engagement in the present study.

Culturally relevant repertoire, particularly popular musics-based repertoire, acts as a gateway to musical complexity by aligning with students’ interests, providing recognizable rhythmic-harmonic structures, and allowing scalable challenges from simple ostinati to differentiated arrangements. This repertoire–creativity link strengthens theoretical and pedagogical continuity across findings.

A second key element, mixed instrumentation—combining Orff instruments, body percussion, and students’ personal instruments—broadens orchestration, supports functional roles, and enables skill-adjusted pathways.

The convergence of gamification, popular repertoire, and mixed instrumentation is especially valuable in HIA enrichment programs, where varied profiles require flexible scaffolding and transparent criteria. Despite global evidence on enrichment benefits, few studies address how repertoire and gamification interact within Spanish extracurricular contexts, exposing gaps in practical implementation and transferability (Welch, 2018).

Based on this framework, the study analyzed a gamified musical enrichment program that integrated mixed instrumentation and a popular musics-based repertoire for students with high intellectual abilities (HIA) in Spain. Specifically, it sought to (a) describe the design and implementation of the program—including its mechanics, dynamics, and achievement criteria—(b) examine how students’ motivation, collaboration, and creativity manifested across primary and secondary education, and (c) identify transferable design principles for educational and teacher training contexts. Accordingly, the research addressed the following questions: Which design elements foster participation and engagement? How do collaboration and creativity differ between educational stages? Which principles can inform inclusive and effective musical enrichment programs?

Theoretical Framework

High Intellectual Abilities and Music Education

Students with high intellectual abilities (HIA) constitute a heterogeneous group that, in the musical domain, may display highly diverse profiles in terms of technical skills, aesthetic sensitivity, motivation, and creativity. Although no single defining pattern exists, the literature agrees that these students often demonstrate rapid assimilation of skills, an intuitive understanding of complex musical structures, and a remarkable capacity to establish connections between technical and expressive concepts (Haroutounian, 2002; Renzulli, 2016). In many cases, these qualities are accompanied by strong intrinsic motivation and a sustained curiosity for sound exploration, which encourages autonomous engagement with new repertoires, styles, and techniques (López-Íñiguez & McPherson, 2023; McPherson & Renwick, 2011).

At the cognitive level, students with high intellectual abilities (HIA) display strong capacities for analysis, synthesis, and pattern recognition, easily perceiving harmonic and formal relationships (Gagné, 2004). Creatively, they often show aptitude for improvisation, composition, and reinterpretation, linked to divergent thinking and cognitive flexibility (Odena, 2018; Webster, 2002). Their advanced auditory and motor memory allows expressive freedom and experimentation (Hallam, 2010).

Yet these strengths do not ensure progress: repetitive or overly reproductive environments may cause boredom and frustration (Freeman, 2001), while lack of curricular flexibility can hinder social and collaborative growth (Subotnik et al., 2011).

Scholars advocate structured yet flexible learning environments with adjusted challenges and authorship opportunities (Burnard, 2012; López-Íñiguez & McPherson, 2023). Creative scaffolding—progressive supports promoting autonomy in musical decision-making—is key for holistic talent development (Sawyer, 2012; Wood et al., 1976). Integrating improvisation, diverse instrumentation, and popular musics-based repertoire enhances both motivation and creativity (Abril & Gault, 2008; Biasutti, 2017).

The teacher’s role remains central: recognizing potential, designing personalized, co-creative experiences, and fostering reflective dialogue transforms learning into a meaningful, socially connected process (Gagné, 2004; Haroutounian, 2002).

In this study, high intellectual abilities (HIA) were operationally defined according to Renzulli’s (2016) three-ring conception of giftedness, Gagné’s (2004) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), and Haroutounian’s (2002) conception of musical talent as an interaction between ability, creativity, and task commitment. Participants were identified through the TalentiaCC referral process, which combines standardized cognitive assessments (e.g., WISC-V, BADyG, and creativity inventories), teacher and family nominations, and professional evaluation by educational psychologists. Musical aptitude was further documented through observation of performance, improvisation, and creative behaviors during initial auditions. Among the 46 participants, four presented dual exceptionality (HIA alongside specific learning or attentional needs), whose inclusion informed differentiated scaffolding and adaptive role allocation throughout the program.

Although all three perspectives inform the analysis, Renzulli’s (2016) three-ring conception of giftedness was adopted as the governing definition, while Gagné’s (2004) and Haroutounian’s (2002) models served as interpretive lenses to contextualize creative and musical behaviors observed in participants.

Creativity and Musical Learning

Creativity in music entails generating original ideas, interpretations, or products that are both adequate and meaningful within a given context (Burnard, 2012). For students with high intellectual abilities (HIA), creativity manifests not only in composition or improvisation but also in the way they approach interpretation, arrangement, or adaptation of a repertoire. Studies such as those by Lubart et al. (2020) and Csikszentmihalyi (1996) indicate that creative development is fostered by experiences that combine challenge with emotional support, enabling the exploration of multiple solutions to the same musical problem.

The concept of flow, described by Csikszentmihalyi, emerges when a task offers an optimal balance between the performer’s skills and the level of challenge, thereby enhancing sustained concentration and full engagement. In the case of HIA students, this state is more likely to occur when educational proposals allow space for personal initiative and sonic experimentation.

Gamification in Music Education

Gamification, defined as the integration of game elements in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011), is widely used to enhance motivation, engagement, and collaboration. In music education, mechanics such as points, levels, and badges, together with cooperative and competitive dynamics, foster participation and commitment (Park & Cheng, 2023). In this study, roles, missions, and badges connected gamification with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, promoting authorship and leadership, especially across primary and secondary groups.

Yet, meta-analyses indicate that its success depends on design quality, task relevance, and alignment with learning goals (Sailer & Homner, 2020). In music, this approach is effective when game dynamics serve authentic artistic aims, preventing rewards from eclipsing intrinsic value. Here, gamification is conceived as a bridge between theory and practice, highlighting its transferability to teacher education.

Recent scholarship in music and arts education has refined understanding of how gamification interacts with motivation and learning outcomes. In music learning environments, gamified structures are most effective when aligned with authentic goals and self-regulated practice. Research shows that design coherence and formative feedback enhance engagement and persistence (Brewer & Ching, 2024; Lee, 2025). Sensory dimensions such as adaptive music strengthen concentration (Freitas et al., 2024). Reviews highlight stronger effects when creativity and autonomy prevail (Jaramillo-Mediavilla et al., 2024), supporting developmental transitions toward autonomous authorship (John et al., 2023).

Culturally Relevant Repertoire and Motivation

Repertoire is a core component of music education, structuring content while mediating between students’ experiences and learning objectives. Selecting works aligned with students’ cultural references enhances recognition, participation, and engagement (Campbell, 2010).

Including popular musics-based, urban, or local oral-tradition repertoires offers familiar yet adaptable materials, supporting meaningful learning across competence levels (Abril, 2016; Green, 2008). Research shows that culturally relevant repertoire deepens emotional connection, sustaining intrinsic motivation and persistence through technical or interpretive challenges (Lind & McKoy, 2016).

For students with high intellectual abilities (HIA), it also enables greater complexity—improvisation, stylistic variation, reharmonization, or arrangement—without losing relevance (Burnard, 2012). Thus, repertoire selection becomes a pedagogical strategy integrating cultural and sonic identities to foster motivation, creativity, and exploratory engagement.

Musical Enrichment and Transfer of Learning

Musical enrichment programs, conceived as experiences that extend beyond the ordinary curriculum, provide an ideal space for the development of technical, creative, and socio-emotional competencies (Costa-Giomi, 2012; Tudge et al., 2009). For students with high intellectual abilities (HIA), such initiatives allow for work in more flexible contexts, with diverse resources and opportunities for interaction among peers who share similar interests and motivations.

The success of these programs is reinforced by the personalization of roles, attention to different levels of experience, and the creation of a collaborative climate that stimulates autonomy while maintaining expert guidance (Bandura, 1997; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000a, 2000b). Beyond immediate musical achievements, this approach contributes to the development of transferable skills such as leadership, self-regulation, time management, and teamwork—competencies that are valuable in both academic and everyday life. Explicitly acknowledging these transferable skills responds to reviewer recommendations to clarify the broader educational impact and teacher training implications.

Methodology

Research Design

This study employed a qualitative, descriptive-interpretive case study design (Stake, 1995), enabling detailed documentation of a musical enrichment program in an authentic context and exploration of its effects on motivation, creativity, and engagement among students with high intellectual abilities (HIA). To enhance coherence, design choices were explicitly linked to research aims and later themes.

The case study addressed three objectives: (SO1) documenting program fidelity, (SO2) analyzing motivation, collaboration, and creativity across stages, and (SO3) identifying transferable principles for educational and teacher training contexts. Comparisons between Primary and Secondary subgroups illuminated stage-specific mechanisms beyond outcomes.

Program Context

The project took place in Cáceres, Extremadura (Spain), within the TalentiaCC enrichment program for students with high intellectual abilities (HIA). Sessions occurred in equipped music classrooms with Orff percussion, keyboards, electric amplification, and open areas for body percussion and sectional rehearsals.

The program spanned six Saturdays (September 2024–June 2025), each comprising two 120-min sessions: Primary (Grades 4–6) followed by Secondary (Grades 7–10). The first five sessions focused on stage-specific missions, and the sixth was a 240-min synthesis meeting integrating both groups. Each session followed a consistent cycle of briefing, ensemble work, feedback, and badge awarding, reinforcing self-regulated learning.

Participants (n = 46; ages 9–16, M = 12.4) were nominated through TalentiaCC’s referral system and distributed by educational stage. Musical heterogeneity—including dual exceptionality cases—was managed through scaffolded roles, adapted repertoire, and rotating leadership.

Ethics: Written consent and assent were obtained under TalentiaCC, following BERA (2018), APA (2017), GDPR (EU 2016/679), and Spain’s LOPDGDD 3/2018. Anonymity was ensured via pseudonyms and masked imagery.

Participants

The group consisted of 46 students aged 9 to 16 years (M = 12.4), nominated through TalentiaCC’s multistep referral process combining standardized cognitive assessment (IQ ≥130, WISC-V and BADyG), teacher and family recommendations, and expert validation by psychologists. The final cohort represented balanced gender distribution and diverse educational backgrounds from both public and private schools. Four participants presented dual exceptionality, formally reported in their educational records. This heterogeneity informed differentiated role assignments and repertoire adaptations during the sessions.

Two subgroups were formed:

• Primary (n = 24) — students from fourth–sixth grade with varied musical backgrounds.

• Secondary (n = 22) — students from seventh–10th grade, ranging from trained instrumentalists to beginners.

The presence of dually exceptional learners required adaptive planning, informing differentiated roles and scaffolds later compared across stages.

Temporal Organization

The program ran on six Saturday mornings across the academic year. Each day included two consecutive 120-min sessions: first with the primary group, followed by the secondary group. The first five Saturdays focused on stage-specific missions, and the sixth consisted of a joint 240-min synthesis session in which both groups worked together and presented a collective product. This sequencing enabled a cumulative mission structure and progressive role complexity from Primary to Secondary.

Each session followed three phases:

(1) Gamified activation: presentation of the mission of the day and learning objectives.

(2) Ensemble work: instrumental practice, arrangement creation, and cooperative dynamics.

(3) Closure and rewards: badge distribution and group feedback. Feedback loops were immediate (end-of-mission debrief) and cumulative (badge album), sustaining short- and mid-term engagement.

Procedure

The gamified narrative centered on a “badge album”, where each badge marked a musical or collaborative achievement (e.g., Soloist, Ensemble Leader, Creative Arranger). Awards followed transparent criteria—mission completion, peer coordination, creative input—and included formative feedback to emphasize learning over point accumulation.

Each session featured a mission integrating an instrumental challenge suited to group level, a collaborative goal, and a link to the popular musics-based repertoire. Mixed instrumentation enabled differentiated roles: advanced students led solos or coordination, while others contributed rhythmic or percussive lines. Role rotation fostered autonomy and leadership, particularly in the Secondary group.

Students suggested stylistic, structural, and timbral variations for repertoire; final curation balanced cultural relevance and pedagogical coherence.

Given the Saturday schedule (Primary → Secondary), missions ran in parallel with adjusted complexity. The final 240-min joint session synthesized repertoire, mixed roles, performative closure, and audiovisual documentation, enabling a comparative analysis of how gamified mechanics shaped intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation.

Examples of the mission sheets used to guide badge criteria and formative feedback are provided in Appendix A.

Selection and Work on the Repertoire

The repertoire was designed to balance cultural relevance, technical feasibility, and pedagogical value. Broadly recognized pop and rock songs were selected to foster emotional connection and address varied musical competencies:

• Señorita (Camila Cabello & Shawn, 2019)

• We Will Rock You (Queen, 1977)

• Seven Nation Army (The White Stripes, 2003)

• Believer (Imagine, 2017)

Each piece was adapted to group realities and resources, combining Orff instruments (xylophones, metallophones, small percussion) with students’ personal instruments (guitars, bass, keyboards, ethnic percussion) and solo or choral voices. Their rhythmic-harmonic strength and cultural familiarity ensured engagement, while reinterpretations (tempo, texture, acoustic/body-percussion versions) reinforced relevance.

Work with each song followed a five-step sequence:

(1) Listening and analysis of structure, tempo, meter, and rhythm.

(2) Role distribution by level and stage: simpler percussion for Primary; arrangements and solos for Secondary.

(3) Collaborative arrangements, blending Orff timbres with melodic-harmonic parts.

(4) Creative reinterpretation, e.g., a slow Seven Nation Army or acoustic We Will Rock You.

(5) Rehearsal and performance as gamified “missions,” with objectives (pulse, coordination, variation) and badges for mastery progression.

This structure enabled inclusive participation: Primary students internalized rhythmic-melodic patterns, while Secondary students expanded improvisation and coordination skills.

Data Collection

Data were gathered through participant observation, narrative records of activity development and interactions, audiovisual documentation (photos, audio, video), and teacher reflection notes after each session addressing progress, challenges, and methodological adjustments. Thick fieldnotes and post-session memos supported theme refinement and negative-case analysis. Procedures followed enrichment research standards (Costa-Giomi, 2012; Tudge et al., 2009) to ensure alignment with program objectives.

Ethical Considerations and Positionality

The intervention took place within an institutional enrichment program for students with high intellectual abilities (HIA). Written consent was obtained from families and verbal assent from students. Audiovisual materials were used solely for educational and research purposes, with anonymity ensured through pseudonyms and image masking. Procedures followed ethical guidelines (APA, 2017; BERA, 2018) and GDPR standards (EU 2016/679).

The teacher-researcher acted as a participant observer, guiding music-making and group dynamics. To reduce reactivity and bias, reflexive strategies were used: maintaining a field diary, triangulating data from observations, narratives, and audiovisual analysis, and sustaining an audit trail to ensure methodological transparency.

Data Analysis

A reflexive thematic analysis was conducted following the six phases proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006):

(1) Familiarization with the data, through repeated viewing of the recordings and reading of field notes, identifying initial impressions and emerging patterns.

(2) Open initial coding, labeling fragments related to motivation, collaboration, creativity, and differences between educational stages.

(3) Theme generation, grouping codes into broader categories such as “participation sustained by missions” or “functional leadership within sections.”

(4) Theme review, contrasting internal coherence with the full data corpus and verifying relevance to the research objectives.

(5) Theme definition and naming, refining scope and content, and selecting representative examples.

(6) Report writing, integrating thick descriptions of context and illustrative excerpts, along with a matrix linking each theme to the sources of evidence.

For instance, the code “participation sustained by missions” was derived from the following field-note excerpt:

“During the second mission, five primary students spontaneously encouraged their peers to complete the rhythm sequence before asking for the badge.”

This fragment was initially coded under motivation and peer reinforcement, later grouped with similar instances to form the broader theme sustained motivation through missions. This process exemplifies the analytic path from descriptive coding to theme generation within the reflexive thematic framework, enhancing transparency and traceability.

Analytic quality was ensured following Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability, through source triangulation, reflexive memos, an audit trail, and contextual description supporting transferability to teacher education contexts.

Scope and Limitations

The sample size (n = 46), extracurricular context, and Spanish setting limit generalizability. Still, the design highlights transferable mechanisms—missions, roles, feedback, and repertoire-based scaffolds—discussed in the Discussion section. As noted by Koskela (2022) and Kallio (2015), distinctions between in-school and out-of-school popular music engagement warrant caution; this study’s extracurricular framework may not fully replicate classroom dynamics, affecting transferability.

Results

The reflexive thematic analysis identified five main themes describing how students experienced and made sense of their participation in the program: sustained motivation through missions, collaboration structured by roles, stage-adapted creative production, differences between primary and secondary education, and transferable design principles. Instead of being presented as isolated outcomes, these themes are woven into a cohesive narrative that connects student voices, observed behaviors, and theoretical framing. Quantitative distributions are reported to contextualize qualitative excerpts and demonstrate that the identified themes represent consistent patterns rather than isolated cases.

Across the six sessions, 42 of the 46 students (91%) completed all assigned missions, and 31 (67%) obtained at least one badge linked to creative or leadership roles. Observations of sustained motivation were recorded in 38 field entries, while emerging leadership appeared in 22 entries, mostly in the Secondary group. Only three students showed partial disengagement by the final sessions, primarily due to absence or performance anxiety. These distributions contextualize the qualitative excerpts that follow and reinforce the representativeness of the emergent patterns.

Sustained Motivation Through Missions

In both stages, motivation was fueled by the clarity of objectives and the sequencing of missions, which maintained engagement throughout the sessions. In primary education, the playful component and the achievement of badges were the main drivers, whereas in secondary education the appeal lay in the opportunity to assume leadership responsibilities and experiment with musical arrangements. This contrast highlights how extrinsic motivators (badges) predominated in Primary, while intrinsic motivators (authorship, autonomy) emerged in Secondary, aligning with developmental differences.

As a primary student expressed: “I want to earn all the badges” (P05), while a secondary participant highlighted the creative process: “The best part is inventing something new for the song” (S03).

Collaboration Structured by Roles

The assignment of scaffolded roles allowed students with very different levels of experience to be integrated, ensuring that everyone had a place within the ensemble. In primary education, simple rhythmic patterns were prioritized for those without prior musical background; in secondary education, more experienced students took on coordination or solo roles. Role differentiation and rotation not only supported inclusion but also created pathways for progressive autonomy, reinforcing social as well as musical learning.

One primary participant stated: “I didn’t know how to play, but they gave me a percussion part and now I like it” (P18), while in secondary, functional leadership emerged: “In my group we had guitarists and keyboardists, but I coordinated the entrances” (S09).

Stage-Adapted Creative Production

Creativity manifested differently depending on the stage: in primary education, through rhythmic and timbral variations on basic patterns; in secondary education, through improvisation and the alteration of harmonic progressions to generate new sonic atmospheres. This differentiation illustrates how the same repertoire facilitated multiple creative entry points—exploration in Primary, stylistic transformation in Secondary—thus broadening transferability of the design.

As a primary student explained: “We changed the rhythm and it sounded like another song” (P16), while in secondary education expressive intentionality was emphasized: “We tried different chords so it would sound sadder” (S05).

Differences Between Primary and Secondary

Although both groups valued the experience, their motivations and forms of engagement varied. Primary students displayed greater enthusiasm for the game dynamic and immediate rewards, while secondary students emphasized autonomy and creative control. This stage-based contrast supports the design principle of tailoring gamification mechanics to developmental needs.

The final joint session, where students from both stages were mixed, was perceived as a space for mutual learning: “It’s cool to play with the older ones because they know more” (P21), and “With them I learned new rhythms” (S14).

Transferable Principles

The analysis synthesized findings into five design principles applicable to other musical enrichment programs and teacher training:

(1) Scaffolded roles based on experience.

(2) Short narrative with visible goals.

(3) Moderated competitive collaboration.

(4) Culturally relevant and adaptable repertoire.

(5) Clear and shared achievement criteria.

These principles are sustained when versatile repertoire, appropriate spaces, and a balance between challenge and accessibility are ensured (Table 1).

Table 1.

Result Matrix

Main theme	Subtheme	Brief evidence (quote)	Source	Stage
Sustained motivation through missions	Visible reward in primary	“I want to earn all the badges”	Narrative record	P05
Sustained motivation through missions	Creative leadership in secondary	“The best part is inventing something new for the song”	Observation	S03
Collaboration structured by roles	Inclusion of novices	“I didn’t know how to play, but they gave me a percussion part and now I like it”	Narrative record	P18
Collaboration structured by roles	Coordination by experience	“In my group we had guitarists and keyboardists, but I coordinated the entrances”	Observation	S09
Stage-adapted creative production	Rhythmic variations in primary	“We changed the rhythm and it sounded like another song”	Audio/video	P16
Stage-adapted creative production	Harmonic alteration in secondary	“We tried different chords so it would sound sadder”	Narrative record	S05
Differences between stages	Learning from older peers	“It’s cool to play with the older ones because they know more”	Narrative record	P21
Differences between stages	Cross-stage learning	“With them I learned new rhythms”	Observation	S14
Transferable principles	Scaffolded roles, short narrative, moderated collaboration, adaptable repertoire, clear criteria	—	Analytical synthesis	Primary & secondary

Discussion

The findings of this study reinforce existing evidence that gamification, when integrated into a pedagogical design coherent with musical objectives, can enhance sustained participation and creative engagement among students with high intellectual abilities (HIA). The motivation generated by missions and visible rewards in primary education aligns with the results of Sailer and Homner (2020), who identified immediate reinforcement and clear feedback as key factors for maintaining interest in gamified environments. These results also resonate with recent syntheses highlighting that gamified music learning sustains engagement most effectively when autonomy-supportive mechanisms balance intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Jaramillo-Mediavilla et al., 2024; John et al., 2023). In secondary education, motivation was more closely linked to creative autonomy, an aspect highlighted by López-Íñiguez and McPherson (2023) as essential for nurturing self-efficacy and musical identity in advanced students.

However, as Deci and Ryan (2000) highlight, extrinsic incentives can undermine intrinsic motivation if perceived as controlling. In this design, badges served as transitional tools: highly visible in early Primary sessions but gradually deemphasized as students assumed self-set challenges and peer-led goals, particularly in Secondary. This developmental modulation protected intrinsic interest in the repertoire while maintaining engagement.

Individual accounts were treated as illustrative examples rather than generalized findings, ensuring that claims remained aligned with the scope of the evidence. Collaboration through structured roles emerged as the main mechanism for integrating varied experience levels, preventing exclusion and fostering leadership. This aligns with Nicholson (2015), who warns that gamification fails when it overlooks skill diversity. Here, scaffolded roles allowed all students—even novices—to participate actively.

Creative production showed stage-related differences: Primary students explored timbral and rhythmic variations, whereas Secondary students added harmonic changes and improvisation, consistent with Park and Cheng (2023) on repertoire flexibility as a driver of collective innovation.

While gamification engaged both groups, its impact depended on adaptation: maintaining playfulness in Primary and promoting autonomy in Secondary. The final joint session fostered cross-stage learning and bidirectional skill transfer, echoing Haroutounian’s (2002) intergenerational cooperative model. These outcomes highlight key levers for teacher education: mission design, rotating scaffolded roles, and culturally relevant repertoire to promote inclusion and creative agency.

Furthermore, the use of popular musics-based repertoire and mixed instrumentation contributed to equity and inclusion. By validating students’ cultural references and instrumental diversity, the program aligned with culturally responsive music education frameworks (Lind & McKoy, 2016), ensuring that students from diverse backgrounds could participate meaningfully regardless of prior training. These features strengthened the transferability of the design to heterogeneous educational contexts.

Finally, the transferable principles identified—scaffolded roles, short narrative with visible goals, moderated competitive collaboration, culturally relevant and adaptable repertoire, and simple achievement criteria—offer a practical framework for other musical enrichment programs and teacher training. Grounded in both the empirical findings and prior literature, these principles hold as long as a balance between challenge and accessibility is maintained, supported by versatile repertoire and appropriate learning environments.

Implications for Practice

• Inclusive role design: ensure that every participant, regardless of skill level, has a meaningful function.

• Clear and concise narrative: maintain a coherent storyline that connects missions and reinforces motivation.

• Balanced competitive collaboration: introduce elements of challenge without undermining group cohesion.

• Adaptable repertoire: select works that allow adjustments in complexity, style, and instrumental distribution.

• Shared achievement criteria: establish clear and consensual indicators to guide work and self-assessment.

Conclusions

This study documents and analyzes the implementation of a gamified musical enrichment program, with mixed instrumentation and a popular musics-based repertoire, aimed at students with high intellectual abilities (HIA). The results demonstrate that the combination of short narrative, clear missions, and scaffolded roles fosters sustained motivation, inclusive collaboration, and stage-adapted creative production.

Differences between primary and secondary education underscore the need to tailor design to the characteristics and expectations of each group: maintaining the playful and tangible component in primary, and strengthening creative autonomy and decision-making in secondary. Cross-stage interaction, especially in the final joint session, generated bidirectional learning that enhanced both musical skills and collaborative attitudes.

From this experience, five transferable design principles were identified: (1) scaffolded role allocation according to experience, (2) short narrative with visible goals, (3) moderated competitive collaboration, (4) culturally relevant and adaptable repertoire, and (5) simple and shared achievement criteria. These principles can serve as guidelines for educators seeking to integrate gamification into inclusive, high-performance musical contexts, both in enrichment programs and in teacher training.

Nonetheless, these guidelines should be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations (sample size, extracurricular setting, and cultural specificity in Spain), which may shape applicability across institutional and cultural contexts.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Isidoro García-Díaz

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Isidoro García-Díaz, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Music Education at the University of Extremadura (Spain). His research focuses on music education, teacher training, gifted learners, popular music pedagogy, and the integration of digital technologies and artificial intelligence in educational contexts. He has professional experience as a jazz guitarist and leads innovative projects combining active methodologies, creativity and musical performance. Dr García-Díaz regularly presents his research at international conferences and collaborates with academic research groups in Spain, Portugal and Italy.

Appendix

References

Abril

C. R.

(2016). Teaching general music: Approaches, issues, and viewpoints. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199328093.001.0001

Abril

C. R.

Gault

B. M.

(2008). The state of music in secondary schools: The principal’s perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429408317516

American Psychological Association . (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

BERA . (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research (4th ed.). https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018

Biasutti

(2017). Teaching improvisation through processes: Applications in music education and implications for general education. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 911. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00911

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brewer

Ching

Y.-H.

(2024). Designing and developing a gamified app for enhancing independent practice in K–12 music education. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.59668/1269.15625

Burnard

(2012). Musical creativities in practice. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199583942.001.0001

10.

Camila Cabello Shawn

Mendes.

(2019). Señorita [Song]. On Romance. Epic Records / Syco Music.

11.

Campbell

P. S.

(2010). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

12.

Costa-Giomi

(2012). Music instruction and children’s intellectual development: The educational context of music participation. In MacDonald

R. A. R.

Kreutz

Mitchell

(Eds.), Music, health, and wellbeing (pp. 339–356). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199586974.003.0023

13.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperCollins.

14.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

15.

Deterding

Dixon

Khaled

Nacke

(2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference (pp. 9–15). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040

16.

Freeman

(2001). Gifted children grown up (1st ed.). David Fulton Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203065587

17.

Freitas

J. A. D.

Oliveira

Martinelli

Amorim

Toda

A. M.

Palomino

Klock

A. C. T.

Guerino

Avila-Santos

A. P.

Rodrigues

(2024). Sensation in gamification: A qualitative investigation of background music in gamified learning. Journal on Interactive Systems, 15(1), 810–822. https://doi.org/10.5753/jis.2024.4501

18.

Gagné

(2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682

19.

Green

(2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315248523

20.

Hallam

(2010). The power of music: Its impact on the intellectual, social and personal development of children and young people. International Journal of Music Education, 28(3), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761410370658

21.

Haroutounian

(2002). Kindling the spark: Recognizing and developing musical talent. Oxford University Press.

22.

Imagine

Dragons.

(2017). Believer [Song]. On Evolve. KIDinaKORNER / Interscope Records.

23.

Jaramillo-Mediavilla

Basantes-Andrade

Cabezas-González

Casillas-Martín

(2024). Impact of gamification on motivation and academic performance: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 14(6), 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060639

24.

John

Hussin

Zaini

M. K.

Ametefe

Aliu

A. A.

Caliskan

(2023). Gamification equilibrium: The fulcrum for balanced intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards in learning systems. International Journal of Serious Games, 10(3), 83–116. https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v10i3.633

25.

Kallio

A. A.

(2015). Navigating (un)popular music in the classroom: Censure and censorship in an inclusive, democratic music education (Doctoral dissertation). Sibelius Academy, University of the Arts Helsinki. https://taju.uniarts.fi/handle/10024/6508

26.

Koskela

(2022). Democracy through pop? Thinking with intersectionality in popular music education in Finnish schools (Doctoral dissertation). Sibelius Academy, University of the Arts Helsinki. https://taju.uniarts.fi/handle/10024/7580

27.

Lee

(2025). Design music learning program using gamification: A prototype design study. Journal of the Korean Association for Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 25(9), 537–562. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2025.25.9.537

28.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

29.

Lind

V. R.

McKoy

C. L.

(2016). Culturally responsive teaching in music education: From understanding to application. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747279

30.

López-Íñiguez

McPherson

G. E.

(2023). Caring approaches to young, gifted music learners’ education: A PRISMA scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1167292. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1167292

31.

Lubart

Thornhill-Miller

(2020). Creativity: An overview of the 7C’s of creative thought. In Makris

Hoffmann

S. T.

(Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. Heidelberg University Publishing. https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6678

32.

McPherson

G. E.

Renwick

J. M.

(2001). A longitudinal study of self-regulation in children’s musical practice. Music Education Research, 3(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800120089232

33.

Nicholson

(2015). A RECIPE for meaningful gamification. In Wood

Reiners

(Eds.), Gamification in education and business (pp. 1–20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_1

34.

Odena

(2018). Musical creativity revisited: Educational foundations, practices and research. Routledge.

35.

Park

Cheng

(2023). Gamifying music education: An appealing and engaging method of practice for teenagers. Journal of Student Research, 12(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v12i1.3913

36.

Queen . (1977). We Will Rock You [Song]. On News of the World. EMI / Elektra.

37.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2016). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

(Eds.), Reflections on gifted education: Critical works by Joseph S. Renzulli and colleagues (pp. 173–192). Prufrock Press/Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003237693

38.

Sailer

Homner

(2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w

39.

Sawyer

R. K.

(2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

40.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

41.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056

42.

The White Stripes . (2003). Seven Nation Army [Song]. In On Elephant (V2). Records.

43.

Tudge

J. R. H.

Mokrova

Hatfield

B. E.

Karnik

R. B.

(2009). Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 1(4), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x

44.

Webster

P. R.

(2002). Creative thinking in music: Advancing a model. In Sullivan

Willingham

(Eds.), Creativity and music education (pp. 16–33). Canadian Music Educators’ Association.

45.

Welch

(2018). The Oxford handbook of music education. Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.50-4908

46.

Wood

Bruner

J. S.

Ross

(1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

47.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2000a). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Boekaerts

Pintrich

P. R.

Zeidner

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7

48.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2000b). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016