educational games research paper

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Researching and designing educational games on the basis of “self-regulated learning theory”

Associated data.

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

As one of the important research fields of educational technology, the potential of educational games has been widely recognized by academic researchers. However, in terms of practical application, it is difficult to balance education and recreation, and problems have also arisen in learners’ cognitive development and skill enhancement. On this basis, this paper initially compares the educational and entertainment aspects of educational games from a learning motivation perspective. It draws on the theory of self-regulated learning and ARCS learning to establish an ARCS learning motivation model and educational game design framework. Finally, it develops a bio evolution education game that is based on this framework, and this verifies that this framework can feasibly guide practice. In drawing on the theory of autonomous learning, this paper discusses the design framework of stimulating and sustaining learning in educational games, and establishes a bridge between user learning behavior and entertainment behavior. This will provide a theoretical and case study reference for the integration of educational purpose and game entertainment into educational games.

Introduction

Educational games originated from the concept of “serious game” put forward by Abt (1970) in 1970. He maintained these games are “not primarily about entertainment but about serious, fun content, in which players learn information, gain new learning experiences, and inspire learning motivation and creativity” ( Abt, 1970 , p. 8). Gee (2007 , p. 10) argued: “Good games are problem-solving spaces that create deep learning—learning that is better than what we often see in schools.” A great deal of empirical research confirms that these games play a very positive role in stimulating students’ learning motivation, improving students’ innovation ability, and prompting students to form a good emotional attitude (this is one of the important research directions of educational technology discipline) ( Mayer, 2019 ; Calvo-Morata et al., 2020 ). The pedagogical potential of games was recognized when the game “America’s Army” was created in 2002. As the research on educational games has continued to grow, the focus of research has gradually shifted from design development and application evaluation to the integrated exploration of education and entertainment. Connolly et al. (2012) has for example highlighted the impact of educational games on learners’ perceptions, behavior, emotion, and motivation, and has particularly emphasized their contribution to knowledge acquisition and content comprehension. Boyle et al. (2016) compares educational games to casual games and finds that educational games contribute significantly to knowledge learning, while casual games mainly produce behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and physiological changes. However, Girard et al. (2013) undertakes practical applied research to assess the acceptability and effectiveness of educational games and finds that only a small percentage of games improved learning, and that most educational games are comparable to traditional teaching methods in terms of knowledge and skill acquisition.

Motivation, as an important factor that motivates users’ behavior to achieve the ultimate goal, permeates the knowledge learning and leisure entertainment aspect of educational games. Intriguing content, such as action scenes, background music, mechanics and good storylines, is naturally entertaining and can motivate users’ entertainment motivation and increase game engagement. But the rich entertainment content of the game can also act to the detriment of learning motivation. This paper discusses the dynamic integration of educational purpose and educational game entertainment from an independent learning angle, and focuses on the improvement and maintenance of learning motivation. In doing so, it constructs the strategy and framework of educational game design.

Literature review

Research status.

The main purpose of educational games is to learn knowledge and information, and interest games are a medium of knowledge transfer. The integration of education and entertainment in educational games is not a recent problem. Since 2015, researchers have gradually increased their exploration of education and play in educational games. Arnab et al. (2015) has, in integrating educational and recreational elements, proposed the Learning Games (LM-GM) Model. Based on self-explanation theory, Clark et al. (2016) draws on Self-Explanation Theory to propose game design principles such as non-open-ended answers, along with prompts that take the game’s processing needs into account and also mobilize learner participation. Silva (2020) separates the learning content from the entertainment elements and proposes the main steps to define the learning mechanism of educational games. Some scholars have also conducted a balanced study of education and recreation for motivators. Tuzun (2004) constructs a multi-motivation framework for educational games, summarizes 12 types of educational game motivation, and discusses the relationship between elements by drawing on the concept of duality. Tuzun divides the framework into four main areas (subject, activity, outcome, and object), which each consist of two main motivators that interact. Also, Tuzun (2004) highlights the importance of choice in motivating learners, and proposes creativity, learners’ identity expression, and social relationships formed during the playing of online games can motivate learners. Carvalho et al. (2015) proposes the model of serious games (ATMSG) by drawing on Activity Theory. He suggests play and learning coexist in the same player and subject who has different motivations. Academic research on educational game motivation currently mainly focuses on the generalization of factors, but research into its application strategy in educational games is still being explored, and there are few practical cases.

Self-regulated learning

Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) is a theory which holds that learners are able to proactively plan their learning content, implement learning strategies and constantly monitor, reflect on and adjust their learning behaviors during the learning process ( Panadero, 2017 ). It is essentially a “feedback loop” of sorts, that can be roughly divided into the planning, implementation and reflection stages ( Zeidner and Stoeger, 2019 ; Guo et al., 2021 ). The planning stage is the self-regulating behavior before learning begins; the implementation stage is the self-regulating behavior during learning; and the reflection stage is the adjustment of the next learning strategy or goal after learning is over—it involves comparing feedback from the objective against feedback from the implementation stage.

ARCS learning motivation model

Promoting and improving learning motivation has an important role to play in education. Educational games can strongly attract learners and motivate their learning behavior. Malouf (1988) comparison experiment finds that educational games can be effective in maintaining learners’ learning motivation. Chile and Rosas et al. (2003) undertake an empirical study and find that the application of educational games in the classroom can effectively motivate learners and positively affect classroom instruction. Research of motivators in educational games still lacks a consensus, and Malone and Lepper’s study is the most representative of the theory ( Laine and Lindberg, 2020 ). Malone and Lepper put forward a complete theory of individual “intrinsic motivation” and experimentally validate and summarize it. They present challenge, control, curiosity and fantasy as individual factors that increase motivation; and competition, cooperation and respect as collective factors that have the same effect. The biggest difference between video games and learners themselves is that the latter are able to exercise their subjective initiative, make independent choices and regulate their behavior ( Winne, 2017 ). In considering the integration of self-regulation learning theory and educational games, it is crucial to select the appropriate regulatory elements as this will help to maintain and enhance users’ learning motivation through element regulation.

The ARCS model of learning motivation (ARCS) was introduced to filter and refine the elements of regulation in educational games. It categorized factors that influence students’ motivation, including attention – motivation first stems from the fact that the current learning arouses curiosity and attention in the motivated subject; relevance—motivated subjects are more likely to maintain motivation when they feel that the current learning is highly relevant to their own values and experiences; confidence—motivated subjects are more likely to focus on current learning when they believe that they are capable of performing a particular learning task; and satisfaction—motivated individuals are more likely to have a high level of satisfaction and to maintain their motivation in new learning situations when they are fairly evaluated on the completion of a task and have the opportunity to use the content to solve a practical problem ( Keller, 1987 ). ARCS focuses on motivation and on its maintenance. It does not only analyze the mechanism of motivation generation but also tries to identify how to promote motivation generation through external design, in the expectation this will relieve learner anxiety and improve learning initiative ( Turel and Ozer Sanal, 2018 ). ARCS is also often used to assess the effectiveness of educational games ( Guo et al., 2021 ; Laurens-Arredondo, 2022 ).

Methodology

In taking learning motivation as its starting point, this paper discusses the balance between entertainment and learning in educational games by using qualitative research methods that include documentary analysis and it also applies inductive methods that include contrast and analysis. This paper proposes a dynamic adjustment strategy based on SRL and ARCS, which can continuously motivate and sustain the user’s learning motivation. The educational game’s design framework is then constructed, and the design practice of the evolutionary educational game of marine and terrestrial creatures is completed by referring to this strategy and framework.

Game strategy design based on self-regulated learning

In referring to the design of game strategy, this paper summarizes and analyzes the motivational factors of the ARCS educational game (see Figure 1 ). A review of the literature shows that while there is no academic consensus on the factors that influence motivation for educational play, some similar factors are generally put forward, including challenges, curiosity, feedback, rules and sensory stimulation. Curiosity, fantasy, mysteries and sensory stimulation that capture the learner’s attention are classified as elements of the game scenario because they are primarily acquired through auditory and visual stimuli related to the game. Challenges, competition and purpose are related to the game’s core mechanism; since the core mechanism of the game serves the game itself, the core mechanism of the educational game introduced by the ARCS is closely related to the game’s pedagogical objectives. Process elements such as control and cooperation, which are associated with students’ learning experiences and are important stages in the development of learners’ self-confidence—they also regulate the difficulty of the game and are accordingly classified as “helpful.” Feedback element is an explicit expression of satisfaction in the ARCS, and feedback directly influences the learners’ satisfaction and sense of achievement. The final paper identified four regulatory elements based on the ARCS: context —awakening users’ curiosity and attention; goal —managing learning content and objectives; help —providing appropriate guidance; and feedback —learning behavioral statistics and drawing on related feedback. Context and feedback focus more on auditory, interactive, visual and other elements of entertainment, and targeting and helping emphasize the purposefulness of educational games.

Design of reconciliation elements.

The self-regulating process of learning motivation divides game strategy design into three dynamic cyclic stages, specifically the planning, behavior/will control and reflection stages. The four key elements (context, goals, help and feedback) are dynamically tuned to the dimension content to be implemented at each stage (see Figure 2 ). The planning stage is the beginning of learning behavior; curiosity and challenge drive users to the behavior stage; users’ learning behavior is the content basis of the reflection stage; and the reflection stage provides a data basis for the context, goal, help and feedback regulation in the next cycle.

Design of educational game strategies based on self-regulated learning.

Contextual adjustment

We seek to create a comfortable learning environment for users by adjusting elements such as pictures and audio to their learning content, learning habits and cognitive level. At the planning stage, we need to present the learning content in visual and auditory form and create a learning environment for the user. Through appropriate emotional guidance and sensory stimulation, we arouse users’ curiosity and stimulate their desire to learn. The behavioral phase emphasizes the user’s independent mastery. Users can adjust the game scenario to their own learning schedule and needs. Situational feedback and evaluation record user behavior such as environmental adjustment and learning interruption, and generate corresponding learning status evaluation data.

Goal adjustment

In accordance with the user’s learning ability, cognitive level, learning status and other evaluation data, task objectives are dynamically adjusted. The aim is to keep the user in a state of mental flow to the greatest extent possible. In the planning stage, we set appropriate mission objectives for users based on mission evaluation, situation evaluation and ancillary evaluation data from the previous cycle, which enables us to build learning expectations and define learning tasks. In the action phase, users can control their learning behavior, adjust the task goals autonomously and avoid mismatching the task content, and this can cause the game to get out of control. In the reflection phase, study behavior such as duration, task difficulty and operation trajectory are summarized and evaluated in order to provide data support to the next cycle. In this phase, knowledge will also be reviewed and collated to consolidate learning outcomes.

Help adjustment

In accordance with users’ cognitive level, learning ability, learning process, and other evaluation data, we adjust in-game operation hints, content review, task guidance and other learning aids. At the planning stage, we adjust the manner and extent of activation of existing knowledge or core content by drawing on user assessment data from the previous cycle. In the behavior phase, the content and frequency of learning aids are adjusted in accordance with the user’s learning behavior and state at this stage. Information on learning assistance of this kind is recorded and evaluated during the reflection phase.

Feedback adjustment

Adapt auditory, tactile and visual elements of educational games to the user’s learning behavior, learning stage, and cognitive level, and give psychological and sensory feedback.

The four-game conditioning elements extracted from the ARCS can motivate users from the outside, form internal and external linkages with internal factors (such as attention, relevance, self-confidence and satisfaction), enhance learning willingness and keep educational games alive.

Game design principles based on self-regulated learning

The motivation-oriented learning process is summarized in three stages: before, during and after the task (see Figure 3 ). Sensory stimulation is provided to the user through elements that include game media, scene creation, and horizontal playback before the task starts. This will enhance the user’s curiosity and motivation beliefs. In the mission phase, we strengthen rules and user controls to promote learning behaviors through the core game mechanism, game guidance and emotional storytelling. At the end of the task, user satisfaction can be improved by rewarding feedback and social systems that visualize learning behaviors and outcomes. Motivation before the task stimulates the users’ learning behavior; learning behavior increases users’ knowledge reserve and improves users’ learning ability; and learning ability and pleasant learning experience further strengthens users’ motivation beliefs. These three stages interact to form a dynamic cycle. In drawing on the strategy foundation, this paper puts forward the specific design principles of game elements.

A framework for motivation-oriented educational game design.

Game medium

Performance in games depends on interactive media, and is influenced by aesthetics, dynamics and mechanisms. Educational game media choices should be based on educational themes, technical feasibility and user acceptance and should, to the greatest extent possible, be attractive, innovative and draw on participatory game media or methods. New and avant-garde interactive media have a natural advantage in stimulating curiosity and motivation to learn.

Scene creation

In referring to educational content, user group and game type, this paper takes visualization as its starting point, presents objective things virtually and constructs learning scenes, including audio-visual scenes and user roles.

Level design

Motivity-controlled educational game design should consider user characteristics and educational content. Detailed short, medium and long-term goals are formulated in conjunction with a step-by-step mechanism that helps users gradually complete educational content and achieve ultimate educational goals.

Core mechanism

Educational game design should be based on the intrinsic mechanisms of educational knowledge, and corresponding game content and learning strategies should be designed according to contextual, descriptive and procedural knowledge characteristics. Knowledge learning is the core purpose of educational games, and the design of the core mechanism of games should be combined with educational content. Establish the connection between knowledge and play, let the user game behavior reflect the learning behavior, and help the user to complete cognitive construction in the game.

Game guidance

Game guidance and level design jointly affect the intensity of an educational game task. Level targets provide task content; game guidance determines task scaffolding. In the game guidance design, we should develop different guidance modes in accordance with different mission objectives as this will meet the differentiated needs of different types of users. Game coaching should be based on immersive principles as this will help to avoid excessive distraction ( Chee and Wong, 2017 ).

Emotional narrative

Educational games are synchronized in narrative space and time. Narrative and emotional articulation around learning content that draw on dialogue, interaction, graphics, music, sound and text provide the basic principles of educational games.

Reward and feedback

Visualize the user’s behavior trajectory, learning outcomes, learning status, and ability level, and provide timely feedback on user behavior and actions by drawing on factors such as grades, rewards and scores. Quantitative demonstration of learning effectiveness can help users build self-awareness and improve their satisfaction and sense of achievement.

People’s social needs are reflected in cooperation and competition, trading, making friends, socialization, ranking and other games. Games, educational knowledge and user types have different social needs. We should focus on educational goals, complement them with entertainment elements, choose appropriate social functions and avoid excessive or meaningless social content.

Educational game design practice

The pandemic, which broke out in late 2019, reaffirmed the importance of ecological civilization in an extreme way. It has accordingly led to an improvement in public ecological civilization behavior and awareness. Surveys show that the implementation of popular ecological civilization science directly affects the public’s sense of meaning, cognitive attitudes and willingness to participate ( Nazir et al., 2021 ). But science popularization activities are often constrained by public awareness, science popularization resources, scientific space and space and talents, and are difficult to carry out continuously on a large scale. The digital education game is simple, convenient, and quick to spread, which is unaffected by time space and material resources and is also an ideal medium for carrying out science popularization activities ( Mattioli, 2021 ). This paper therefore selected biological evolution as a learning component of an educational game and designed an educational game (“Ocean to Land”) to assist vertebrate evolution. It seeks to help users understand the evolutionary path of vertebrates, the general laws of species evolution (including the internal and external factors that affect species evolution), deepen users’ understanding and knowledge of life, expand users’ knowledge base of life sciences and improve ecological literacy.

Game overview

The game takes key nodes of vertebrate fish landing evolution as its levels, divided by evolutionary time into vertebrate origin, jawed fish, bony fish, carnivorous fin fish, and tetrapods. The game incorporates the general laws of biological evolution into the core mechanics game, and shows users a Paleozoic marine landscape that reveals interesting aspects of species’ evolution mode, context and survival environment (see Figure 4 ). The game was currently completed as a lightweight web application, mainly using HTML5 and JavaScript. It is a cross-platform game that can run on various devices, such as tablets, computers, and cell phones.

“Ocean to Land” game home page.

Core mechanism design

In drawing on the game design principle of self-regulated learning, the game combines biological “principles of balanced intermittent evolution” with the core game mechanism, and this creates mirrored relationships between entertainment and learning behaviors that stimulate learning motivation and behavior (see Figure 5 ). An understanding of speciation and the direction of evolution are central to the game. Players can achieve their goals through three main gameplay methods, specifically species feature extraction, evolutionary synthesis and survival adventure. In the game, players can observe animals, explore evolutionary directions, experience survival and learn about vertebrate evolutionary pathways.

Core game mechanics.

In “Species Extraction,” players observe the fish’s dynamics, learn about its features and gain an insight into its evolutionary direction and life coin. In the “Survival Adventure” module, players manipulate the species to capture prey in the ocean and evade predators, who are converted into life coins. The “Evolution Synthesis” module asks players to edit or synthesize evolutionary directions on the basis of mission descriptions and prompts, and enables them to explore and decipher species evolution and mutations. Editing or synthesis operating this part requires consuming the life coin, and the consequences of evolution can affect the species’ ability to survive in “survival adventures.”

Game regulation strategy

The game is based on the strategic framework of SRL, which influenced the refinement design of the game context and mission goals by providing helpful guidance and feedback. Table 1 decomposes the game functions on the basis of the characteristics of vertebrate fish evolution science, and proposes three functional partitions (simplified, basic, and extended). The functions that are more fun but that place more demands on players’ learning ability are divided into the expansion partition. The functions that make it easier and faster to obtain information but which are not entertaining are divided into the simplified partition. The game uses basic features and then adjusts them on the basis of the players’ game evaluation data.

Game function division.

In referring to the characteristics and evolutionary knowledge of fish, the game is based on the ocean of related periods, and it seeks to construct an adjustable learning environment. For example, in Figure 6B , which is the basic situation of “feature extraction,” the game takes the ocean scene, fish model and operation method reminder as its basic functions. When the player has a high exploration ability, text messages and operational prompts are reduced to reduce information disturbance (see Figure 6C ). When a player’s information acquisition ability and cognitive level do not meet the requirements of basic functions, voice messages are added to help the player understand the game (see Figure 6A ).

Species feature extraction page.

In accordance with the characteristics of scientific and technological knowledge, the game’s mission objectives are mainly observation tasks and exploration tasks. Take the bone armor fish level as an example. As Figure 6B shows, the basic function is the core exploration task to “discover the characteristics of bone armor fish”—this refers to the disassembled head, back and balance, and involves three subdivision tasks. The core exploration to discover the initial full-jawed fish involves three sub-tasks that relate to the nasal sac, nervous system and gill arch. Core tasks are only retained when players have a high ability to learn and explore (see Figure 6C ). When players are less able to learn and explore, tasks are further broken down (see Figure 6A ).

The in-game help function mainly consists of information tips and instructions. As Figure 6B shows, the basic function is to trigger an information cue in the upper left corner if the player has not explored the action correctly for a long time. As players learn more, in-game activity alerts will be canceled and players can choose to view them independently (see Figure 6C ). If players have limited learning abilities, detailed instructions are provided (see the hint in Figure 6A about the characteristic location of oracle fish).

The basic purpose of game feedback is to provide audio and visual feedback through background music, sound effects and kinetic effects. The expansion strategy seeks to add vibration feedback at key points in survival adventure, including by completing core roles and adding cell phone gravity feedback. Voice encouragement can be added when players have limited learning abilities and are impatient.

Discussion and conclusion

The article constructs a framework of strategies and design principles based on self-regulated learning, and is guided by strategies and principles applied in the design and development of the educational game “Ocean to Land.” This game explores the evolutionary characteristics of vertebrates through fish models, and allows players to grasp the general law of animal evolution and the “balancing discontinuity principle.” It also enables players to consolidate their knowledge and fully explore evolutionary directions through survival adventures. In drawing on the regulatory strategy, Marine International has designed a functional regulation that consists of four elements, specifically context, goals, help and feedback. In drawing on statistics related to player learning interruptions, we refer to operation intervals, level duration, frequency of help, point of life consumption and number of failed attempts to survive, and formulate specific rules and measures of segmentation that have practical application implications for exploring the balance of entertainment and teaching in educational games. When compared with educational games with relatively fixed task challenges and game scenarios (e.g., “U.S. Army”), the task settings and learning scenarios are more flexible and can be more easily adapted to the learning needs of different learner types. Subsequent studies, in considering the effects of different game types and learning populations on the learning effectiveness of educational games, will provide a more detailed assessment of the effectiveness of the “Ocean to Land” framework by undertaking user experiments.

Learning knowledge and skills is the fundamental purpose of educational games, and video games provide ways and means of disseminating educational content. This paper emphasizes the learning purposefulness of educational games and explores the integration of education and entertainment in educational games from the perspective of learning motivation. On the basis of the SRL, the four main regulation elements of context, goal, help, and feedback are extracted from the combination of motivation elements in educational games and integrated with the ARCS. The dynamic control strategy of the educational game is then constructed, and the design principle of the educational game is put forward in accordance with the three stages of intermediary control. In being guided by regulatory strategies and design principles, and operating in the pandemic’s wave of eco-civility, “Ocean to Land,” an educational game on biological evolution, was introduced and developed. This paper seeks to explore the dynamic integration of educational purposes into educational game entertainment forms; in drawing on motivating factors to construct a mapping bridge between users’ learning behavior and entertainment behavior, this paper provides points of theoretical and practical reference that will influence the future research and development of educational games.

Data availability statement

Author contributions.

FJ and DS made the theoretical design of this article, reviewed, and revised the manuscript. FJ drafted the manuscript. All authors have read and reviewed the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Abt C. C. (1970). Serious games. New York, NY: Viking Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnab S., Lim T., Carvalho M. B., Bellotti F., de Freitas S., Louchart S., et al. (2015). Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 46 391–411. 10.1111/bjet.12113 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyle E. A., Hainey T., Connolly T. M., Gray G., Earp J., Ott M., et al. (2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Comput. Educ. 94 178–192. 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calvo-Morata A., Alonso-Fernández C., Freire M., Martínez-Ortiz I., Fernández-Manjón B. (2020). Serious games to prevent and detect bullying and cyberbullying: A systematic serious games and literature review. Comput. Educ. 157 : 103958 . 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103958 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carvalho M. B., Bellotti F., Berta R., De Gloria A., Sedano C. I., Hauge J. B., et al. (2015). An activity theory-based model for serious games analysis and conceptual design. Comput. Educ. 87 166–181. 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.023 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chee C.-M., Wong D. H.-T. (2017). Affluent gaming experience could fail gamification in education: A review. IETE Tech. Rev. 34 593–597. 10.1080/02564602.2017.1315965 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark D. B., Virk S. S., Barnes J., Adams D. M. (2016). Self-explanation and digital games: Adaptively increasing abstraction. Comput. Educ. 103 28–43. 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly T. M., Boyle E. A., MacArthur E., Hainey T., Boyle J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Comput. Educ. 59 661–686. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gee J. P. (2007). Good video games and good learning. New York, NY: Peter Lang. [ Google Scholar ]
• Girard C., Ecalle J., Magnan A. (2013). Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 29 207–219. 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00489.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo J. L., Hsu H. P., Lai T. M., Lin M. L., Chung C. M., Huang C. M. (2021). Acceptability evaluation of the use of virtual reality games in smoking-prevention education for high school students: Prospective observational study. J. Med. Internet Res. 23 : e28037 . 10.2196/28037 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keller J. M. (1987). The systematic process of motivational design. Perform. Instr. 26 1–8. 10.1002/pfi.4160260902 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laine T. H., Lindberg R. S. N. (2020). Designing engaging games for education: A systematic literature review on game motivators and design principles. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 13 804–821. 10.1109/TLT.2020.3018503 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laurens-Arredondo L. (2022). Mobile augmented reality adapted to the ARCS model of motivation: A case study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educ. Inf. Technol. 27 7927–7946. 10.1007/s10639-022-10933-9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malouf D. B. (1988). The effect of instructional computer games on continuing student motivation. J. Spec. Educ. 21 27–38. 10.1177/002246698802100406 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mattioli M. (2021). History of video game distribution. IEEE Consum. Electron. Mag. 2 59–63. 10.1109/mce.2020.3032778 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer R. E. (2019). Computer games in education. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70 531–549. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102744 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nazir R., Ali J., Rasul I., Widemann E., Shafiq S. (2021). Eco-environmental aspects of COVID-19 pandemic and potential control strategies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 : 3488 . 10.3390/ijerph18073488 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Panadero E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Front. Psychol. 8 : 422 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosas R., Nussbaum M., Cumsille P., Marianov V., Correa M., Flores P., et al. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: Design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Comput. Educ. 40 71–94. 10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00099-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva F. G. M. (2020). Practical methodology for the design of educational serious games. Information 11 : 14 . 10.3390/info11010014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turel Y. K., Ozer Sanal S. (2018). The effects of an ARCS based e-book on student’s achievement, motivation and anxiety. Comput. Educ. 127 130–140. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tuzun H. (2004). Motivating learners in educational computer games. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winne P. H. (2017). The trajectory of scholarship about self-regulated learning. Teach. Coll. Rec. 119 1–16. 10.1177/016146811711901312 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeidner M., Stoeger H. (2019). Self-regulated learning (SRL): A guide for the perplexed. High Ability Stud. 30 9–51. 10.1080/13598139.2019.1589369 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Review article
• Open access
• Published: 10 July 2017

The effect of games and simulations on higher education: a systematic literature review

• Dimitrios Vlachopoulos 1 &
• Agoritsa Makri 2  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  14 , Article number:  22 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

401k Accesses

289 Citations

41 Altmetric

Metrics details

The focus of higher education institutions is the preparation of future professionals. To achieve this aim, innovative teaching methods are often deployed, including games and simulations, which form the subject of this paper. As the field of digital games and simulations is ever maturing, this paper attempts to systematically review the literature relevant to games and simulation pedagogy in higher education. Two researchers collaborate to apply a qualitative method, coding and synthesizing the results using multiple criteria. The main objective is to study the impact of games and simulations with regard to achieving specific learning objectives. On balance, results indicate that games and/or simulations have a positive impact on learning goals. The researchers identify three learning outcomes when integrating games into the learning process: cognitive, behavioural, and affective. As a final step, the authors consolidate evidence for the benefit of academics and practitioners in higher education interested in the efficient use of games and simulations for pedagogical purposes. Such evidence also provides potential options and pathways for future research.

Introduction

As rapidly evolving technological applications, games and simulations are already widely integrated in the traditional educational process. They are deployed extensively in the field of education, with an existing body of work examining the relation between games and education (Yang, Chen, & Jeng, 2010 ; Chiang, Lin, Cheng, & Liu, 2011 ). In recent years, digital or web-based games have increasingly supported learning. In the context of online education, this research area attracts a significant amount of interest from the scientific and educational community, for example tutors, students and game designers. With the growing expansion of technology, instructors and those who create educational policy are interested in introducing innovative technological tools, such as video games, virtual worlds, and Massive Multi-Player Online Games (MMPOGs) (Buckless, 2014 ; Gómez, 2014 ).

Games and simulations show mixed effects across a number of sectors, such as student performance, engagement, and learning motivation. However, as these studies focus only on certain disciplines, there remains a gap in the literature concerning a clear framework of use across academic programmes. As a result, the issue of efficiently integrating games and simulations in the educational process is often up to the instructor’s discretion. Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to develop a framework to allow educators across disciplines to better understand the advantages and draw backs of games and simulations specific to their pedagogical goals.

Rationale of the study

The researchers set out to examine the effectiveness of games and simulations in the learning experience, and immediately encounter the first challenge, which relates to a lack of clear empirical evidence on the issue (Farrington, 2011 ). The scientific field is too extensive and requires further investigation. Furthermore, there is currently no formal policy framework or guidelines recommended by governments or educational institutions on the adoption of games and simulations in education. This is the case for many countries in Europe, the US, and Australia, where it is the responsibility of the instructor or institution to incorporate games into the curriculum.

The main motivation for the current review lies in the fact that games are already, to a certain degree, integrated into educational systems to achieve a variety of learning outcomes (Connolly, 2012 ), yet a comprehensive policy is still lacking. In this paper, the first step was an attempt to conceptualize the terms “game” and “simulations”. Although the two terms are neither wholly synonymous, or completely differentiated, in the main body of this review, the focus will be on lumping them together and perceiving them as points across a multidimensional continuum (Aldrich, 2009 ; Renken, 2016 ), since these educational technologies are consolidated under the umbrella of an interactive virtual environment in digital education.

A primary aim is to identify studies concentrating on the use of games and simulations for learning purposes, and to analyse the results by comparing them to prior studies’ findings. Two research questions guide the review analysis: a) How can the best practices/methods for designing and incorporating games and simulations in student learning be identified? b) How can games/simulations enhance Higher Education?

The major difference between the current review and the previous reviews in the field is the conceptualization of the terms “games and simulations”, which acts as an umbrella for further typologies. In other words, the researchers include more genres of games and simulations in their systematic review, compared to the other literature reviews. In addition, the researchers’ intention is to focus on the impacts of games and simulations on learning outcomes. The researchers don’t focus only on the cognitive outcomes, which is the most obvious and common topic among other researchers but, simultaneously, they analyze behavioural and affective effects as well. Furthermore, most of the previous reviews focus on the impacts of games and simulations on the learning process of certain subjects (e.g. Science, Business, Nursing, etc.), whereas this study expands research in a wide spectrum of academic disciplines and subjects. Overall, the current study offers a systematic review that opens new areas for further discussion, highlighting that collaborative learning, teamwork and students’ engagement also play a significant role for a successful learning process.

Conceptualising games and simulations

In recent years, the interest in examining game use in higher education has increased. This includes educational games (Çankaya & Karamete, 2009 ), digital game-based learning (DGBL) (Yang, 2012 ), and applied games (van Roessel & van Mastrigt-Ide, 2011 ). In addition, scholars, sometimes, include interactive exercises (Mueller, 2003 ), video games (Biddiss & Irwin, 2010 ), or even expand to next generation video games (Bausch, 2008 ), in the category of games. With respect to web-based games, the technological platforms that implement digital game code include computers and consoles (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004 ). They can run on a web browser on mobile phones and other mobile gaming devices (Willoughby, 2008 ) (e.g., tablets).

Despite the abundance of game types, there is a lack of clear, shared definitions and terminology among scholars and educators, which has led to “terminological ambiguity” (Klabbers, 2009 ). Nevertheless, the need for shared terminology remains when discussing the different forms of games and simulations in higher education. Although academics and game developers may use varying taxonomy to categorise games, the majority broadly agree on the following seven genres (Gros, 2007 ):

Action games: response-based video games.

Adventure games: the player solves problems to progress through levels within a virtual world.

Fighting games: these involve fighting with computer-controlled characters or those controlled by other players.

Role-playing games: players assume the roles of fictional characters.

Simulations: games modelled after natural or man-made systems or phenomena, in which players have to achieve pre-specified goals.

Sports games: these are based on different kinds of sports.

Strategy games: these recreate historical scenes or fictional scenarios, in which players must devise an appropriate strategy to achieve the goal.

In recent years, several well-designed empirical studies investigating the effects of serious games on learning outcomes have been published. Sawyer refers to serious games as those games produced by the video game industry that have a substantial connection to the acquisition of knowledge (Sawyer, 2002 ). Zyda ( 2005 ) expands Sawyer’s definition, adding that serious games are games whose primary purpose is not entertainment, enjoyment or fun. Serious games, educational gaming, as well as virtual worlds developed for educational purposes reveal the potential of these technologies to engage and motivate beyond leisure activities (Anderson et al., 2009 ). At the same time, there is extensive literature exploring the potential learning benefits offered by game-based learning (GBL), which can be defined as the use of game-based technology to deliver, support, and enhance teaching, learning, assessment, and evaluation (Connolly, 2007 ).

• Simulations

Simulations create a scenario-based environment, where students interact to apply previous knowledge and practical skills to real-world problems, also allowing teachers to reach their own goals, as well (Andreu-Andrés & García-Casas, 2011 ; García-Carbonell & Watts, 2012 ; Angelini, 2015 ). During scenario-based training, the player acquires important skills, such as interpersonal communication, teamwork, leadership, decision-making, task prioritising and stress management (Flanagan, 2004 ). The practical scenario may be carried out individually or within a team (Robertson et al., 2009 ), leading to collaboration and knowledge sharing.

With the explosion of Web 2.0 technology, increased opportunities to engage with technological applications in a collaborative and participatory way have emerged, promoting information access, shared ideas, knowledge exchange, and content production (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008 ). Digital simulations, which engage students in the interactive, authentic, and self-driven acquisition of knowledge, are being adopted in higher education. Connolly and Stansfield ( 2006 ) define game-based e-learning as a digital approach which delivers, supports, and enhances teaching, learning, assessment, and evaluation. Game-based e-learning is differentiated from GBL, which tends to cover both computer and non-computer games.

Delivery platforms are an essential aspect for game designers when creating and distributing games and simulations (e.g. computer, video, online, mobile, 3D, etc.). Designers must pay attention to characteristics such as the technical challenges, modules and techniques associated with the game design, the players involved in gaming, and the teaching modes (e.g. single, multi-player, collaborative, synchronous, etc.). This study examines the diverse curricular areas and learning objectives each game intends to access. The above-mentioned game classification is presented below (Fig. 1 ).

Classification of games and simulations

The main difference between games and simulations is the following: games are tools which are artificial and pedagogical; they include conflict, rules, and predetermined goals, whereas simulations are dynamic tools, representing reality, claiming fidelity, accuracy, and validity (Sauve, 2007 ).

Previously conducted reviews/meta-analyses on games and simulations in higher education

To establish a context , the researchers, initially, examined the relevant literature on the effectiveness of all types of games and simulations in learning outcomes. Many papers are analysed and summarised as follows, providing useful guidance for this study.

Through their systematic review, Tsekleves et al. ( 2014 ) provide insight into the barriers and benefits of using serious games in education. (Regarding benefits, the authors catalogue: achievement and rewards, interactivity and feedback, motivation and competition, playfulness and problem-based learning, collaborative learning, progression and repetition, as well as realism and immersion. Finally, they propose some guidelines to help stakeholders better implement serious games in education. Similarly, Bellotti, ( 2013 ) suggest useful guidelines for the performance assessment of serious games. Following user performance assessments, they offer an overview on the effectiveness of serious games in relation to learning outcomes. Results reveal the effectiveness of serious games in motivating and achieving learning goals, the importance of providing appropriate user feedback, while emphasizing that new types of games are best deployed through proper instructor guidance. Moreover, they stress aspects they consider important, such as performance assessment with a view to fostering adaptivity, as well as personalisation, and meeting needs on an individual basis (e.g. learning styles, information provision rates, feedback, etc.).

The instructor’s role is also outlined by Lameras et al. ( 2016 ) who provide conceptual and empirical evidence on the manner in which learning attributes and game mechanics should be designed and incorporated by faculty, specifically with a view to fully integrate these into lesson plans and the learning process as a whole. Games allow practitioners to quickly come to grips with the way in which learning activities, outcomes, feedback and roles may vary, as well as to enhance the in-game learning experience. Similarly, the systematic review of 64 articles by de Smale, ( 2015 ) concludes that there is a positive or neutral relationship between the use of simulations and games and learning achievement. The researchers arrive at three recurring conditions for the successful use of simulations and games: the specificity of the game, its integration in the course, and the role of a guiding instructor, which are all conditions in line with Bellotti et al. ( 2013 )‘s results.

Young et al. ( 2012 ) choose 39 articles that meet the inclusion criteria related to video games and academic achievement, concentrating on the use of traditional games versus video games for educational purposes. The studies are categorised by subject, namely History, Mathematics, Physical Education, Science, and Languages. Results indicate that there exists limited evidence of the benefits of including education games in the traditional classroom environments, a finding which is contrary to the aforementioned studies. Smetana and Bell ( 2012 ) examine computer simulations to support instruction and learning in Science. In their comparative study between computer games and traditional games, they conclude that computer games can be as effective, if not more so, than traditional games in promoting knowledge, developing procedural skills and facilitating conceptual change. To integrate them properly as supplementary elements (Rajan, 2013 ), games require the adoption of high-quality support structures, student participation, as well the promotion of cognitive and metacognitive skills. This finding contradicts the study carried out by Girard, ( 2013 ). This study treats video games as serious games but considers their effectiveness as a controversial issue, finding that only few games result in improved learning, while others have no positive effect on knowledge and skills acquisition, when compared to more traditional methods of teaching.

In contrast, in their meta-analysis, Clark et al. ( 2015 ) systematically review articles to study the detailed effects of digital games on learning outcomes, concluding that games are important in supporting productive learning and highlighting the significant role of gaming design beyond its medium. Prior to this review, but running along the same lines, Backlund and Hendrix ( 2013 ), in their meta-analysis reported positive outcomes in learning when using serious games in the educational process. Wouters, ( 2013 ) performing meta-analytic techniques, used comparisons as well, to investigate whether serious games are more effective and more motivating than conventional instructional methods. They found higher effectiveness in terms of learning and retention, but less motivation compared to traditional instructional methods. Indeed, serious games tend to be more effective if regarded as a supplement to other instructional methods, and involve students in groups and multiple training sessions.

These findings are compatible with those in the survey conducted by Rutten, ( 2012 ), which focuses on implementing games as laboratory activities, concluding that simulations have gained a prominent position in classrooms by enhancing the teacher’s repertoire, either as a supplement to traditional teaching methods or as a partial replacement of the curriculum. Nevertheless, they stress that the acquisition of laboratory skills cannot be wholly conducted via simulations. However, in areas where simulations have been widely accepted as a training tool, simulations can play a significant role in making lab activities more effective when offered as pre-lab training. Fu, ( 2016 ), through a systematic literature review, identify the multi-dimensional positive impact of serious games in business education, with the most frequent outcomes being knowledge acquisition and content understanding. The study also confirms that GBL and serious games can influence player engagement, perpetual and cognitive skills and social or soft skills. The affective and motivational outcomes are examined in entertainment games, games for learning and serious games, which reflects the trend of using gaming elements as both a medium of entertainment as well as a mode of learning. Ritzhaupt, ( 2014 ) produce meta-analysis based on 73 articles, demonstrating that achievement measures (e.g., standardised test scores) are the most commonly investigated, while the second most frequent is affective measures (e.g., usability or attitudes towards technology) followed by behavioural measures (e.g., task behaviour).

Merchant, ( 2014 ), via a meta-analysis, compare the effectiveness of games, simulations and virtual worlds in improving learning outcomes. Findings indicate that playing games individually enhance student performance more than playing collaboratively. Nonetheless, the researchers claim that there is no statistically significant difference between the effects of individual and cooperative instructional modules regarding simulations. Student learning outcomes deteriorate after repeated measures, since after spending a certain amount of time playing games, the learning outcome gains start to diminish. On the contrary, Shin, ( 2015 ), through meta-analysis, aim to identify the effects of patient simulation in nursing education. They find significant post-intervention improvements in various domains for participants who receive simulation education compared to the control groups, thus leading to the conclusion that simulations are more effective than traditional learning methods, enhancing the player’s psychomotor, affective, and cognitive skills. In their work, simulations provide students with authentic clinical situations, allowing them to practice and experience in realistic and safe environments.

Connolly et al. ( 2012 ) develop a multi-dimensional approach to categorising games and offer a review of 129 papers on computer games and serious games, explicitly targeting cognitive, behavioural, affective and motivational impacts, as well as engagement. The most frequent outcomes are knowledge acquisition and content understanding, as well as affective and motivational outcomes. Gegenfurtner, ( 2014 ) in their meta-analysis of the cognitive domain, examine how design elements in simulation-based settings affect self-efficacy and transfer of learning. They conclude that gathering feedback post-training, as opposed to during the process, results in higher estimates of self-efficacy and transfer of learning.

Researchers also look at games and simulations from a theoretical perspective. Li and Tsai ( 2013 ), examine the theoretical background and models employed in the study of games and simulations. They focus principally on the theories of cognitivism, constructivism, enactivism, and the socio-cultural perspective. Results indicate that although cognitivism and constructivism are the major theoretical foundations employed by game-based science learning researchers, enactivism and the socio-cultural perspective are the emerging theoretical paradigms drawing increasing attention in this field. This literature review indicates an increasing recognition of the effectiveness of digital games in promoting scientific knowledge and concept learning, while giving lesser importance to facilitation of problem-solving skills, exploring outcomes from the viewpoint of scientific processes, affect, engagement and socio-contextual learning. This view is echoed by other researchers, such as Warren, ( 2016 ), who systematically review and demonstrate the effectiveness of simulation games on satisfaction, knowledge, attitudes, skills and learning outcomes within nurse practitioner programmes. After comparing online simulation-based learning with traditional lectures, they find an increase in student knowledge and confidence when using simulation games. Peterson ( 2010 ) also performs a meta-analysis, examining the use of computerised games and simulations in language education from a psycholinguistic and socio-cultural viewpoint. Results show valuable opportunities for effective language learning, confirming that games are beneficial in helping students learn another language.

Sitzmann ( 2011 ), using interactive cognitive complexity theory, offers a comparative review on the instructional effectiveness of computer simulations. To perform the review, she examines three affective outcomes (motivation, effort, and self-efficacy), one behavioural (effort), two cognitive (declarative knowledge and retention), and two skill-based learning outcomes (procedural knowledge and transfer). She concludes that, post-training, simulation-trained learners demonstrate higher self-efficacy and procedural knowledge. Furthermore, she highlights the significance of using specific methods to improve simulation learning, namely, integration of game use within an instructional programme, high level of learner activity, no gaming time limit, and adopting the simulation game as a supplement to other methods, which is inconsistent with Wouters et al.’s survey ( 2013 ). Hsu et al. ( 2012 ) provide a cross-analysed content analysis agreeing with the previous researchers that topics such as “Motivation, Perceptions and Attitudes” are of utmost importance.

In a recent review of business literature, Carenys and Moya ( 2016 ) discuss the impact of digital game-based learning (DGBL) on students. They examine DGBL both from a theoretical point of view and on a practical basis through three stages: a) the evaluation of digital games in the preparatory stage, b) specifying which research has been deemed appropriate for DGBL deployment, and c) the learning outcomes (cognitive, behavioural, affective, and multi-dimensional) that can be attained through digital games. This study moved current research forward in understanding the effectiveness of digital games and advanced the use of digital games in the classroom.

A variety of meta-analyses and systematic reviews have examined the implementation of games and simulations in the learning process, either as a main course element or as a supplement to conventional lectures, illustrating the ever increasing interest of researchers in this promising field.

Synthesis of previous reviews/meta-analyses

After studying the previous reviews, it is evident that the most commonly referred games in past reviews are digital and computerized games (Sitzmann, 2011 ; Young et al., 2012 ; Smetana & Bell, 2012 ; Girard et al., 2013 ; Merchant et al., 2014 ; Clark et al., 2015 ; Carenys & Moya, 2016 ; Warren et al., 2016 ). The technological revolution and the invasion of Internet in Higher Education urge students to build digital and collaborative skills for the twenty-first century through gaming. Also, the emergence of a participatory culture in education spurs researchers to get involved with digital games and simulations. Other games mentioned are serious games and their impact on the learning process (Connolly et al., 2012 ; Bellotti et al., 2013 ; Backlund & Hendrix, 2013 ; Wouters et al., 2013 ; Tsekleves et al., 2014 ; Fu et al., 2016 ). The researchers refer to serious games since they are basically considered as games with educational orientation and not with just entertaining ones.

Another important element we have identified is whether games should be fully or partially integrated into the learning process. Most of the researchers agree that games should be treated mainly as supplementary elements (Sitzmann, 2011 ) since full integration requires high-quality mechanisms, students’ engagement, and instructors’ support. In other cases, the integration of games in the curriculum could either function as a supplement to existing teaching techniques or as a partial substitute for traditional teaching methods (Rutten et al., 2012 ). Moreover, games could even be fully integrated for achieving better learning outcomes (Lameras et al., 2016 ) because games add diversity in educational teaching modules. Nevertheless, the integration of games depends on instructors’ contribution and the way they design and incorporate games in their teaching. This means that instructors should be equipped with knowledge and experience, and be aware of providing guidance to students as regards the proper way of playing games.

The beneficial contribution of game-based learning is broadly identified by the majority of previous reviewers, especially regarding cognitive outcomes. Results indicate that games can be as effective as traditional learning modes, revealing their effectiveness in promoting knowledge acquisition (Smetana & Bell, 2012 ; Backlund & Hendrix, 2013 ; Clark et al., 2015 ; Warren et al., 2016 ), as well as content understanding and concept learning (Connoly et al., 2012 ; Li & Tsai, 2013 ; Fu et al., 2016 ). Additionally, students achieve their learning goals through playfulness and problem-based learning (Tsekleves et al., 2014 ), thus leading to self-efficacy and transfer of learning (Gegenfurtner et al., 2014 ).

Another substantial impact emerged is the effectiveness of games not only in the cognitive domain but also in the affective and behavioural domains (Ritzhaupt et al., 2014 ; Shin et al., 2015 ; Tsekleves et al., 2014 ; Fu et al., 2016 ; Carenys & Moya, 2016 ). The affective domain is thoroughly discussed by the reviewers. In particular, games influence students’ motivation, engagement, and satisfaction of the game-based learning. Regarding behavioural outcomes, few reviews have been conducted, showing that games offer a plethora of opportunities for collaborative learning, enhance interactivity and feedback among players, and develop social and soft skills as well. Some other studies contradict these findings, in a way that they do not reveal positive effects of games (Young et al., 2012 ; Girard et al., 2013 ; Merchant et al., 2014 ), or reveal a rather neutral effect (de Smale et al., 2015 ). In these reviews, games and simulations appear to have some or no positive effects on knowledge and skills acquisition when comparing with traditional instructional methods.

Research method

Research selection.

The authors developed a pre-defined review protocol to answer the research questions, specifically aimed at minimising researcher bias. The literature review was carried out between July and October 2016 and followed the design stages described below.

The reviewed papers are identified through keywords in referenced electronic databases, such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, ERIC, PsycInfo, PsycArticles Fulltext Search, InterDok, ProQuest, Scopus, BEI, and SearchPlus. The keywords for learning outcomes are a combination of the term games or simulations paired with the term higher education , employing the Boolean operator “AND”. Additional keywords for learning outcomes are learning objectives, learning goals, learning objectives and effects . Keywords for platform and delivery methods include computer-based, web-based, digital, virtual, online, and technology. Keywords for games and simulations are educational games, business simulations, role-playing simulations, game-based learning, video games, and serious games . Moreover, the Boolean operator “OR” is employed to combine all these keywords. The study sets the broadest range of keywords, so as not to limit the scope of related articles.

Furthermore, the researchers conducted a comprehensive database search in bibliographic indices for the data selection. The search is related to a variety of scientific fields of study, including Education, Psychology, Information Technology, Management, and other scientific areas (e.g., Engineering, STEM, Health, etc).

Assessment and extraction

The dataset consists of journal articles referring to games, simulations or learning in their title and/or abstract. The researchers piloted and evaluated their selection criteria based on prior studies. The study selection process was conducted in two separate phases: a) the researchers, working independently, initially, and, subsequently, together, screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion criteria, and b) in the event of disagreement or insufficient information, they carried out a thorough consideration of the body of the articles (i.e. methodology and results), again independently, first, and, then, together, resulting in consensus. Then, whether to include the text or not was discussed, based on pre-determined criteria. The inclusion criteria used are as follows:

Only empirical articles across a variety of study designs may be included, so as to achieve rich data.

The participants should be over the age of 18 (e.g., students in higher education, college students, instructors, etc.)

Articles that provide an evaluation of student learning outcomes (via the use of games for pedagogical purposes) may also be included.

The resources should, mainly, consist of journal articles and conference papers, which, due to the peer review process, ensure a high quality of material to examine. Existing meta-analysis and systematic literature reviews should be included as well, in order to cross-validate the review findings.

The articles should be available in either English or French.

The articles should adhere to the objective of the study and the definition of the terms games and simulations as pedagogical applications.

Studies containing samples from higher education institutions should also be included. Conversely, research on the effects of games in primary or secondary education should be discarded.

The review should include games and simulations used in traditional, as well as in online environments.

Only peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2010 and 2016 should be included, as the intention is to include the most current research.

Several exclusion criteria, listed below, were also applied in this study:

Non-empirical studies or studies which solely describe the design of a learning environment.

Participants who are younger than 18 years old.

Non-GBL tools and entertainment games.

Book chapters -not only are books difficult to search for on databases, they are, also, hard to access as full texts. Additionally, books are not always subject to the same peer review process as scientific articles. Dissertations, theses, editorials, book reviews and reports are also excluded for similar reasons.

Articles that cannot be accessed as full texts are excluded.

Articles that do not match the research objectives.

Research focused on types of education other than higher education.

As mentioned above, articles published before 2010.

The following figure illustrates the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Fig. 2 ):

The inclusion and exclusion criteria

Application of these criteria resulted in an initial dataset, yielding 8859 studies, published between 2010 and 2016. The selected papers are derived from 67 academic journals representing a variety of disciplines. Most papers come from the scientific journal “Computers & Education”, while “British Journal of Educational Technology”, and “Simulation & Gaming” were the next two journals appearing with the most frequency. In the final stage, several meetings were organized between researchers to discuss the findings, and to decide on presentation.

The results show a steady increase in published papers discussing games from 2012 onwards. After systematically reviewing their abstracts, a final shortlist of 628 potential full text articles emerged. Two hundred and seventeen out of the 628 were excluded, primarily, due to undesirable focus (e.g. theoretical scenarios for using simulations in education). For each of the remaining 411 studies, the researchers identified and recorded some basic themes, for example, types of learning outcomes, effect or impact of game and simulation methods on learning goals, participants and settings, research questions, research methodology and results. Of these, 123 papers, which are found to contribute data, are selected for the review, whereas the remaining 288 articles are excluded, due to the fact that they are written in a language that the researchers do not understand, or because they are focused on a field other than higher education. The majority of these articles are published in scientific journals or conference proceedings, whereas 25 studies are either meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews. An outline of the entire review is depicted in the following figure (Fig. 3 ):

Research review methodological scheme

Data analysis and synthesis

The identified articles are analysed using a qualitative content analysis technique, which leads to a coding scheme, including a main category, three sub-categories and several associated topics related to the main categories. The researchers unanimously agree upon the coding that emerged from the analysis of the reviewed papers. To ensure inter-rater reliability (p) with respect to the quality of article coding procedures, a small random sample ( n  = 20) of the selected articles is coded in duplicate. The calculated reliability exceeds 93%, which is a high quality of agreement across coding categories. Furthermore, a review of mixed-methodology studies provides high-quality evidence, due to a combination of quantitative and qualitative elements in terms of methodological triangulation.

The researchers examined the studies from varying viewpoints. Firstly, they analysed the data set characteristics, such as the continent on which the studies are conducted, the subject discipline, the methodological research design, the types of games and simulations identified, and the time period in which the majority of the studies took place. The emphasis is on the analysis, measures, and design of the quantitative methodology (experimental, quasi-experimental, pre-test, post-test surveys, etc.), as well as the qualitative methods used in the reviewed surveys.

To sum up, the review studies are selected through a systematic process with pre-arranged criteria. There is no intended bias applied to the selected studies, and although the majority of studies come from Europe, this is simply the result of the systematic selection process.

Data set characteristics

When analysing the data, the researchers came across some interesting characteristics. Other than the meta-analytic studies and review research, the locations of the remaining surveys are as follows: 33% conducted in Europe, 22% in Asia, and 18% in the USA, whereas 24% of the articles do not directly mention a location (Fig. 4 ). Most of the articles come from the USA, the UK, and the Netherlands.

Continets where studies are conducted

With respect to genre, there is a diverse representation of games and simulations. The most prominent game genre identified in the relevant literature seems to be simulation games in general, that is to say, virtual/online games or simulations, computer-based learning, role-playing games, serious games, and business simulation games. This representation is illustrated below (Fig. 5 ):

Representation of the game genres

With respect to the busiest publication period, the majority of studies that meet the inclusion criteria were published between 2013 and 2016, as shown in the following bar chart (Fig. 6 ). This finding demonstrates a notable trend amongst researchers discussing the topic of games and simulations in recent years, due to increased awareness of the use of technological games in higher education.

Years of published articles

The data also represents a wide range of subject areas. Some cover multiple areas, for example Engineering, Management, Science, Law, Social Sciences and Humanities (Tao et al., 2015 ), or even just two areas, such as Biology and Computer Sciences (Yang & Chang, 2013 ), while others refer to only one academic discipline. The subject areas are sorted into larger categories, with the most common area being Business Management and Marketing. The results are shown in the figure below (Fig. 7 ):

Subject disciplene

The reviewed articles include data from 99 samples and 20,406 participants, which is a considerably large grouping. The population tested in the literature review ranges from 5 participants in small qualitative studies (Ke et al., 2015 ) to 5071 participants in extensive quantitative quasi-experimental research (Lu et al., 2014 ). Most of the participants are young undergraduate, graduate or post-graduate students, and faculty members. The studies consistently indicate a good gender balance in participants. In some studies, there is both student and faculty participation (Kapralos et al., 2011 ; Felicia, 2011 ; Hess & Gunter, 2013 ; Hämäläinen & Oksanen, 2014 ; Beuk, 2015 ; Crocco, 2016 ), whereas in others, only instructors are chosen as participants (Tanner, 2012 ; Badea, 2015 ; Franciosi, 2016 ). On the whole, most studies use students as participants.

Procedures and research methodologies

Most studies use either an experimental or a quasi-experimental design employing a pre-test and/or a post-test evaluation, with four using only a pre-test questionnaire, and six using only post-test evaluations. The effects of games and simulations on learning outcomes are measured through calculating the difference between pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental or quasi-experimental design. More specifically, the researchers compare the increases in scores between control and experimental groups to evaluate the effectiveness of using the tested games and simulations. The studies include longitudinal surveys (e.g. Hainey, 2011 ) conducted for a specified number of years, whereas others are comparative studies (e.g., Boeker, 2013 ; Poikela, 2015 ).

Researchers use quantitative methods in the majority of studies (68.6%), while13.1% use qualitative methodology. Some studies follow a mixed research methodology (nearly 18.2%), providing pragmatic perceptions and methodological triangulation of the results. The measures utilized in quantitative studies include knowledge questionnaires, as well as academic, evaluation, and cognitive tests, while in qualitative studies the methods used include interviews, case studies, observations and focus groups.

The studies portray a variety of time periods spent playing games and simulations: some of the participants interact with games over a single session, while others are involved in the gaming process for several weeks or even months (e.g., Yang & Chang, 2013 ; Woo, 2014 ). The studies include multi-player games (e.g., Silvia, 2012 ; Yin, 2013 ), as well as single-player games.

Learning outcomes of games and simulations

In the present review, keeping in mind the aforementioned research questions (p.3), the researchers break down their findings in relation to the learning outcomes of games and simulations into three categories, namely cognitive, behavioural, and affective outcomes. A map of the emerging concepts, which will be further discussed, is illustrated below (Fig. 8 ):

Learning outcomes of Games/Simulations

Cognitive outcomes

Many reviewed studies discuss the impact of GBL activities in learner knowledge acquisition and conceptual understanding (Hainey et al., 2011 ; Connolly et al., 2012 ; Fu et al., 2016 ; Geithner & Menzel, 2016 ). There has been an impact evaluation across subject disciplines, such as Computer Science (Strycker, 2016 ), Engineering (Chaves et al., 2015 ), Physics (Adams, 2016 ), Medicine (Dankbaar, 2016 ), Nursing (Sarabia-Cobo, 2016 ), Management (Geithner & Menzel, 2016 ), Political Sciences (Jones & Bursens, 2015 ), Education (Ke, 2015 ), Languages (Franciosi, 2016 ), and Social Sciences (Cózar-Gutiérrez & Sáez-López, 2016 ).

Knowledge acquisition

Cognitive outcomes refer “to the knowledge structures relevant to perceiving games as artefacts for linking knowledge-oriented activities with cognitive outcomes” (Lameras et al., 2016 , p. 10). Tasks framed as games and simulations are deployed to develop a diverse range of cognitive skills, such as deep learning (Vos & Brennan, 2010 ; Young et al., 2012 ; Erhel & Jamet, 2013 ; Crocco et al., 2016 ), critical thinking and scientific reasoning (Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Halpern et al., 2012 ; Ahmad, 2013 ), action-directed learning (Lu et al., 2014 ), transformative learning (Kleinheskel, 2014 ), decision-making (Tiwari, 2014 ), knowledge acquisition and content understanding (Terzidou, 2012 ; Elias, 2014 ; Fu et al., 2016 ), spatial abilities (Adams et al., 2016 ), and problem solving (Liu, 2011 ; Lancaster, 2014 ).

The effect of games and simulations on learning remains a controversial issue amongst researchers in the field, as it will be further confirmed in this article. Some reviewed studies indicate improved learning, while others show no positive effect on knowledge and skill acquisition compared to traditional learning methods. The value of simulations can be examined from the perspective of content change as discussed in Kovalic and Kuo’s study ( 2012 ). Simulations are directly linked to the course content and students are given the opportunity to apply and better understand theoretical concepts. Additionally, simulations provide an environment in which students can experiment with different strategies, adopt different roles, and take charge of their own decisions by assuming responsibility. The latter issue is discussed at length by Liu et al. ( 2011 ), who find that, when solving problems, students are more likely to learn via playing a game than via a traditional learning experience.

Serious gaming, especially given the context of enthusiastic students, has proved to be an effective training method in domains such as medical education, for example, in clinical decision-making and patient interaction (de Wit-Zuurendonk & Oei, 2011 ). Similarly, Kleinheskel ( 2014 ) illustrates the importance of designing self-reflective simulating activities for nursing students, and aligning such design with cognitive outcomes. When students self-reflect on simulated clinical experiences, they add to their existing knowledge, and apply new knowledge to transformative learning. Poikela et al. ( 2015 ), in a simulated nursing procedure, compare a computer-based simulation with a lecture to examine the meaningful learning students may achieve via the two teaching methods. They conclude that students who participate in the computer simulation are more likely to report meaningful learning outcomes than those taking the lecture, due to the strong presence of reflection-based activities and metacognitive themes. Similar results are present in Chen, ( 2015 ), survey in which both solitary players and collaborative groups achieve equally positive learning outcomes in a game. Students significantly improve judging by their pre- and post-test assessments, which indicates that the gaming experience affects their overall performance, and, most likely, promotes conceptual understanding. Moreover, collaborative GBL allows students to re-construct and co-construct knowledge, thus encouraging problem-solving through peer discussion.

Challenging games enhance participant performance (Wang & Chen, 2010 ; Gold, 2016 ). This finding is supported by von Wangenheim, ( 2012 ), who analyse the cognitive dimension of an educational game focusing on memory, understanding and conceptual application. The validity of micro-simulation games is identified by participants in Lukosch, ( 2016 ), research who evaluate a specific microgame as an excellent instrument for enhancing situated and experiential learning by transferring knowledge to an actual situation at the workplace. The results comply with those of Riemer and Schrader ( 2015 ), where the application of comprehension and transfer of knowledge are best achieved using simulations.

Furthermore, the impact of game-based learning on learning performance has been observed by numerous researchers across diverse subjects, as reported above (Zacharia & Olympiou, 2011 ; Rutten et al., 2012 ; Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Boeker et al., 2013 ; Shin et al., 2015 ; Hou, 2015 ; Chen et al., 2015 ; Tao et al., 2015 ). For instance, Divjak and Tomić ( 2011 ) provide evidence that computer games impact mathematical learning, revealing the positive effect of games on student learning outcomes. Reviews by Young et al. ( 2012 ) confirm the effectiveness of using videogames on History, Languages, and Physical Education. The analysis of four experimental virtual conditions in pre- and post-test assessments reveal that virtual experimentation promotes conceptual understanding in Physics students (Zacharia & Olympiou, 2011 ). A 3D visualisation and simulation laboratory activity on protein structure is more effective than traditional instruction modules, as described in White, ( 2010 ), research resulting in students preferring to work with visualized simulations.

Simulation games also positively affect clinical practice situations. “The Ward”, a simulation game in Stanley and Latimer’s ( 2011 ) research proves to be an enjoyable and valuable learning tool in addressing clinical skill practice, nursing practice knowledge, critical thinking and decision-making. Vos and Brennan ( 2010 ) highlight the effectiveness of marketing simulation games, where students perceive simulations as an enjoyable learning approach, contributing to decision-making, as well as other valuable knowledge and skills, a finding consistent with Tiwari et al. ( 2014 ) survey. Swanson et al. ( 2011 ) created a rubric to measure the effectiveness of teaching strategies in nursing education. The experimental post-test assessment survey aims to evaluate the effects of three teaching strategies on the outcome of performance and retention of intervention activities, student satisfaction, self-confidence and practical educational preferences. Results reveal significantly higher retention scores compared to the first assessment, indicating that high scores in the improved rubric are related to the interactivity of the simulation scenario.

Nevertheless, it should not be taken for granted that students consistently prefer virtual learning settings to more traditional face-to-face environments (Hummel et al., 2011 ). Serious games concerning cognitive perceptions show varying results. For example, simulations are shown to support the comprehension and application of knowledge, albeit less effectively than quizzes and adventures (Riemer & Schrader, 2015 ). In Fu et al. ( 2016 ) review, despite GBL providing a motivating and enjoyable experience, there is a lack of strong evidence to show that games lead to effective learning outcomes. In some cases, there is inconsistency in student views regarding the integration of online games as a positive learning method (Bolliger, 2015 ). Similar views are supported by some researchers, who acknowledge students’ and educators’ hesitation towards virtual simulations and serious games, but they insist on the inclusion of games into course material, and on instructors’ familiarization with their use (Kapralos et al., 2011 ).

Perceptual skills

Other studies confirm the power of games and simulations in developing cognition abilities, especially in the instances of virtual simulations enhancing complex cognitive skills (Helle et al., 2011 ; Siewiorek, 2013 ), such as self-assessment (Arias Aranda, 2010 ), or higher-order thinking (Crocco et al., 2016 ). These are meta-cognitive skills, regarded as essential elements of in-depth learning. The incorporation of game mechanisms into simulations is widely recognised by researchers as beneficial, especially regarding laboratory tasks, where simulation scenarios urge students towards problem-solving and, reflection, thus achieving metacognitive outcomes (Hou & Li, 2014 ; Hou, 2015 ). Kikot, ( 2013 ) concur with the above researchers, stating that students perceive simulation-based learning (SBL) environments positively when asked to achieve dynamic learning outcomes, including thinking, interpreting, and associative skills.

Silvia ( 2012 ) also references cognitive and metacognitive outcomes derived from a multi-role simulation. The simulation helps students apply the concepts they learn in class by connecting the theoretical issues with real-world situations, thus developing their analytical skills, and through comparing different viewpoints, which leads to enhanced critical thinking. Students use the interactive nature of simulations to develop arguments, make judgements and evaluate situations. More importantly, simulations encourage students to develop self-awareness. Similarly, Cela-Ranilla, ( 2014 ) conducted a study in which students display a tendency to perform better in analytical work, such as monitoring, planning and assessment rather than in action-based work. Wouters et al. ( 2013 ), on the other hand, find serious games to be more effective in terms of learning and retention.

Learners can also actively participate in a web-based simulation to facilitate immersion and reflection, leading to deeper understanding of the content (Helle et al., 2011 ). A simulation framework can facilitate learning in terms of flow experience and learning strategies. Indeed, in a study conducted by Li, Cheng, and Liu ( 2013 ), the framework helps students lacking background knowledge to balance challenge and skill perceptions, while for students with average to advanced levels of knowledge, it facilitates the learning experience by either reducing the challenge perception or promoting the skill perception. Along the same lines, Pasin and Giroux ( 2011 ), analyse the mistakes students make in simulations using an empirical prototype. Results show that, although simple decision-making skills are easily acquired through conventional teaching methods, simulation games are useful tools for mastering managerial skills, such as complex and dynamic decision-making. Lin and Tu ( 2012 ) also confirm that simulations enable students to train themselves in decision-making.

Instructors’ engagement

Students are challenged to develop interpersonal, analytical and creative skills, discouraging absenteeism, feelings of boredom and reluctance, leading to academic achievement. However, simulations not only exhibit positive effects in the learning experience of the student, but, also, do so for instructors, as well, in the context of teaching experience. For academics, simulations raise the level of performance, encouraging students to be more alert and attentive during class activities (Navidad, 2013 ), and thus to achieve better learning outcomes. In this vein, instructors are urged to design simulations to be as challenging as possible to stimulate student interest in interacting with the simulation as well as with their peers. Felicia ( 2011 ) denotes that instructors agree with students in acknowledging the educational benefits of video games, such as an understanding of difficult concepts, improvement of spatial awareness and analytical skills, critical thinking, and problem-solving strategies. To enable them to do so, instructors emphasize the importance of clearly expressed learning goals to guide students when using simulations in an online instructional technology course (Kovalik & Kuo, 2012 ).

Even setting aside the potential learning benefits derived from participation in GBL, a stronger connection between games and curricula remains to be forged, as well as the application of more dynamic academic challenges, so as to better adapt to the knowledge of diverse learners (Pløhn, 2013 ). Following such reasoning, as indicated in the literature, faculty plays a key role in achieving learning goals via the use of games and simulations. The instructor role correlates with the demand for abstract learning concepts. In their meta-analysis, Wouters and Van Oostendorp ( 2013 ) show how instructors, acting in a facilitating and supporting role, can foster learning, particularly in selecting and discussing new information and where higher order skills are involved in the learning outcomes. Similarly, instructors can monitor student behaviour and evaluate not only the capabilities, but also the attitudes of tomorrow’s higher education managers during the decision-making process. Rutten et al. ( 2012 ) focus in their literature review on the level of instructional support in GBL, and suggest that a pedagogical framework for the application of computer simulations in education requires a corresponding integration of the educator’s role.

Behavioural outcomes

Behavioural objectives for higher education students refer to the enhancement of teamwork and improvement in relational abilities (Ranchhod, 2014 ), as well as stronger organisational skills, adaptability and the ability to resolve conflicts (Vos & Brennan, 2010 ).

Social skills/teamwork

Simulation games are often seen as powerful tools in promoting teamwork and team dynamics (Stanley & Latimer, 2011 ; Tiwari et al., 2014 ; Lin, 2016 ; Wang, 2016 ), collaboration (Hanning, 2012 ), social and emotional skills (Ahmad et al., 2013 ), and other soft skills, including project management, self-reflection, and leadership skills (Siewiorek, 2012 ; Wang et al., 2016 ), which are acquired through a reality-based scenarios with action-oriented activities (Geithner & Menzel, 2016 ).

In a Spanish management course, simulations enabled students to build pivotal capacities, such as management abilities and team working to enable the success of future managers (Arias Aranda et al., 2010 ). A computer simulation at a university in Taiwan led to comparatively higher learning gains against traditional teaching through collaborative laboratory activities (Shieh, 2010 ), by facilitating students to carry out more active learning and improving their conceptual understanding. Simulation scenarios provide improved social and communication skills, which lead to the enhancement of student knowledge (Sarabia-Cobo et al., 2016 ).

Additionally, collaboration is considered an essential element in the learning process (Elias, 2014 ). The findings of Hummel et al. ( 2011 ) reveal that serious online games improve the quality of learning when it comes to problem-based situations in the workplace by using active collaboration. For this reason, faculty members are urged to create learning environments to support active participation by students in the educational process. Moreover, according to the constructivist approach, the instructor’s role is a significant factor in empowering groups to construct knowledge in a collaborative manner (Hämäläinen & Oksanen, 2014 ). The instructors engage higher education students in the process of formulating hypotheses, interpreting context, providing explanations, and describing observations, by designing and implementing a collaborative and interactive GBL environment. In Yin et al.’s study ( 2013 ), students react positively to participatory simulations, due to the belief that the system helps them advance their conceptual understanding effectively through scaffolding, discussion, and reflection. Participants in Cózar-Gutiérrez and Sáez-López’s study ( 2016 ), while stating that video games are non-essential tools in an educational context, nevertheless, value GBL as an immersive environment that facilitates increased activity and student engagement.

Teamwork, however, seems to be a controversial issue in Costa, ( 2014 ) which evaluates improvement of knowledge sharing. Some learners consider teamwork as a means to facilitate decision making in a game, while others express dissatisfaction due to their peers, be it the latter’s reluctance to take on responsibility or poor negotiation capabilities. Research by Bolliger et al. ( 2015 ) similarly indicates that some learners remain hesitant, as they feel the use of games may actually decrease opportunities for communication with peers and instructors. Merchant et al. ( 2014 ) conclude that student performance is enhanced when playing individually rather than in a group.

Interaction and feedback

In GBL methods, meaningful feedback is a key factor in students achieving the objectives, as well as in being encouraged to reflect on misunderstandings and to transfer learning to new educational contexts (Swanson et al., 2011 ). In the current study, the scope is to investigate learner-learner interaction and social feedback through game mechanics. Higher education students evaluate games and simulations focusing on behavioural change and improvement of interactive abilities. The computer game DELIVER! for example, is evaluated very positively by students due to its focus on active student participation and overall positive impact on social interaction (von Wangenheim et al., 2012 ). Simulations provide visual feedback, encouraging active exploration of the student’s own understanding, enabling a move beyond knowing-in action and beginning to reflect-on and in-action during training, resulting in the contextual application of prior knowledge (Söderström, 2014 ). Real-time feedback in simulation games enables students to clearly define the objectives and expectations in the interactive environment, leading to a reduction in anxiety and uncertainty, thus encouraging better performance (Nkhoma et al., 2014 ).

The literature extensively documents the interaction between behavioural outcomes, learning performance and communication especially in Online Distance Learning (ODL). Indeed, regular feedback on student performance during DGBL facilitates deep learning (Erhel & Jamet, 2013 ). A survey conducted by Chen, ( 2010 ) shows that online games can be social and interactive technologies, helping students form friendships with their peers and providing multiple types of interaction.

Ke et al. ( 2015 ) stress the importance of player interaction, indicating that the inherent interaction between players and their gaming-situated learning environment supplies structured challenges and feedback. Huang, ( 2010 ) share the same view, confirming that, due to the necessity of receiving feedback from peers and the game itself, increased interaction opportunities arise in game-play, adding that interaction is a decisive factor in the construction of knowledge (Seng & Yatim, 2014 ). In a survey conducted by Denholm et al. ( 2012 ), students report improved team working through the use of serious games. They attribute this to receiving feedback, and stressing that even conflict is often considered valuable as it brings diverse views to the fore.

To conclude, the main body of literature explores the impact of games and simulations on learning outcomes on the behavioural level, especially when students are involved in interactive and participatory simulation tasks. The majority of studies reveal a positive effect on behavioural outcomes, concluding that students benefit from appropriate feedback, and reflection through game-based communication activities.

Affective outcomes

Many studies highlight the affective outcomes of using games and simulations in the learning process. The majority of them includes student engagement (Auman, 2011 ; Hainey et al., 2011 ; Lin & Tu, 2012 ; Kikot et al., 2013 ; Lu et al., 2014 ; Ke et al., 2015 ), motivation (Liu et al., 2011 ; Liao & Wang, 2011 ; Costa et al., 2014 ; Lukosch et al., 2016 ), and satisfaction (Cvetić et al., 2013 ; Dzeng, 2014 ; Lancaster, 2014 ; Sarabia-Cobo et al., 2016 ).

Motivation and engagement

Engagement and motivation are major factors in enhancing higher education learning objectives (Connolly et al., 2012 ; Erhel & Jamet, 2013 ; Ke et al., 2015 ; Nadolny & Halabi, 2015 ). Motivation is considered a central factor in the majority of reviewed studies (Felicia, 2011 ; Ljungkvist & Mozelius, 2012 ; von Wangenheim et al., 2012 ; Bellotti et al., 2013 ; Hannig et al., 2013 ; Ahmad et al., 2013 ; Pløhn, 2013 ; Li et al., 2013 ; Denholm et al., 2012 ; Dzeng et al., 2014 ; Lancaster, 2014 ; Ariffin et al., 2014 ; Bolliger et al., 2015 ; Cózar-Gutiérrez, & Sáez-López, 2016 ; Dankbaar et al., 2016 ; Fu et al., 2016 ). Some results suggest the effectiveness of GBL in motivating and achieving learning goals can be found at the lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (e.g. Connolly et al., 2012 ). In the context of digital SBL environments, other motivational dimensions are highlighted, such as self-efficacy (Sitzmann, 2011 ), in conjunction with the transfer of learning (Gegenfurtner et al., 2014 ).

Motivation is a combination of elements such as attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction, which can increase germane cognitive loads. Chang, ( 2010 ) examine the effects of motivation in an instructional simulation game, called SIMPLE. According to the post-game evaluation, student motivation comes from peer learning and user cooperation. Moreover, when instructors teach strategy, this enhances student motivation and engagement, encouraging acceptance of the game, and leading to stronger interest in course-directed learning. Thus, teachers should create a flexible learning environment, giving due consideration to peer interaction, learning motivation, pedagogical support and encouragement to help students develop their autonomy and retain an interest in learning.

Another important element contributing to affective outcomes is challenge. Hainey et al. ( 2011 ) find the presence of a challenge to be the top ranked motivation for online game players, while recognition is the lowest ranked motivation regardless of gender or amount of players in the game. Gamers in a multiplayer environment tend to report competition, cooperation, recognition, fantasy and curiosity when playing games, while online players experience challenge, cooperation, recognition and control. By contrast, fanatical computer game players experience disappointment and a lack of challenge, as they tend to value the technical aspect over the challenges presented by game play. In Hess and Gunter’s survey ( 2013 ), students in a game-based course are motivated, because of the positive social interaction they experience while playing the game; this intrinsic motivation is positively correlated to student performance. Computer games can thus be seen as a learning tool motivating players to acquire many competences. Connolly et al. ( 2012 ) share the same view, seeing the role of challenge as a predictive factor with respect to game engagement and achievement. Similarly, in Ke et al.’s study ( 2015 ), the game-play actions include optimal challenge expectation for the user. These results can also be seen in Badea ( 2015 ), who concludes that the majority of participants in her study acknowledge the highly motivating quality of games, which are complemented by the relaxed class atmosphere when games are used.

However, despite the benefits reaped from the implementation of games and simulations concerning affective outcomes, some researchers underline that motivation is not always related to GBL, emphasizing cases where students who use games in solitary or collaborative environments experience no significant difference in terms of learning motivation (Chen et al., 2015 ). There are indeed cases where serious games are no more motivating than conventional instructional methods (Wouters et al., 2013 ). In Cela-Ranilla et al.’s survey ( 2014 ), despite the suitability of the 3D simulation environment, students do not feel highly motivated or particularly engaged, mostly because they prefer analysis to actions in the particular learning process.

Faculty role

The benefits of a pedagogical shift from a teacher-focused and lecture-based classroom to a student-centred, active-learning environment through the adoption of simulation-based strategies to achieve engagement are relevant to both students and instructors (Auman, 2011 ). There is a progression in student emotion from uncertainty and nervousness to satisfaction and excitement within the gaming experience. Auman ( 2011 ), as an instructor, provides a positive description: she is drawn in by student enthusiasm, her interest in the material is reinvigorated, she feels empowered in her teaching, and ready to guide her class. In this context, it’s easy to see how instructors ought to play a significant role in motivating and engaging students to achieve learning goals. De Porres and Livingston ( 2016 ) concur with Auman ( 2011 ), as their study also indicates increased levels of excitement in doctoral students studying Computer Science, when evaluated in a post-test intervention.

Faculty acting as motivators are key in engaging students in the learning process, working to ensure focus on pre-existing knowledge, as well as to transfer knowledge to game settings (Lameras et al., 2016 ), to reward students for their effort, and support them by providing continuous guidance and pathways for further consideration. The quality of the teacher/facilitator has a strong influence on the learning satisfaction of the students. Also, instructors should facilitate and engage students via in-game discussion forums to help overcome misconceptions, and to lead the game-based learning. The way instructors interact, facilitate and motivate students to construct GBL experiences depends on the design stage, particularly on the way games are incorporated into the curriculum in a traditional course (Wouters et al., 2013 ). This is because motivation exhibits a significant correlation with cognitive and skill performance (Woo, 2014 ). In research conducted by Franciosi ( 2016 ), despite faculty acknowledging the beneficial impact of games on student motivation, they nevertheless, remain doubtful about the effectiveness of games in learning outcomes, thus resulting in neutral attitudes. Interestingly, although instructors perceive simulations as engaging learning technologies, they do not however consider them superior to traditional teaching methods (Tanner et al., 2012 ).

Another aspect, less frequently discussed in the relevant literature, is students’ performing self-assessments with regard to effective learning, as seen in Jones and Bursens study ( 2015 ). This ability is supported by constructivism, since simulations are developed in an active learning environment, where faculty act more as facilitators rather than as instructors and students are provided with feedback to carry out their self-assessments.

Attitudes and satisfaction

A vital element in achieving learning goals is the relationship between motivational processing and the outcome processing (satisfaction), especially in an online instructional game, as seen in the experiment carried out by Huang et al. ( 2010 ). There seems to be a significant relation between these two variables, which suggests that designers of DGBL need to consider extrinsic rewards to achieve motivational development and satisfaction. Learning satisfaction is strongly correlated with student motivation and attitude towards GBL before the game, with actual enjoyment and effort during the game, as well as with the quality of the teacher/facilitator (Mayer, 2013 ). Specifically, students with a higher level of inner motivation and positive attitude towards GBL are more likely to have higher learning expectations, and to experience more satisfaction in their GBL participation.

In general, most studies report that students develop a positive attitude toward the pedagogical adoption of games and simulations in education (Divjak & Tomić, 2011 ; Bekebrede, 2011 ; Ibrahim et al., 2011 ; Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Tanner et al., 2012 ; von Wangenheim et al., 2012 ; Halpern et al., 2012 ; Terzidou et al., 2012 ; Hanning et al., 2013 ; Giovanello, 2013 ; Cvetić et al., 2013 ; Kovalik & Kuo, 2012 ; Li & Tsai, 2013 ; Hainey et al., 2011 ; Boeker et al., 2013 ; Nkhoma et al., 2014 ; Costa et al., 2014 ; Chaves et al., 2015 ; Riemer & Schrader, 2015 ; Angelini, 2016 ; Geithner & Menzel, 2016 ). The participants in Dudzinski et al. ( 2013 ) respond positively towards a serious web-based game, describing the experience as interesting, stimulating and helpful, as well as a valuable addition to their pharmacy curriculum. Other students perceive simulation games as fun, but not particularly useful as an instructional method compared to lectures, and about equally useful as case discussions (Beuk, 2015 ). In another study, the majority of students show a positive attitude towards games, positing that they make subjects more fun and provide more opportunities for learning (Ibrahim et al., 2011 ). This finding is consistent with Bekebrede et al. ( 2011 ) on the perceptions of Dutch students belonging to the “net generation”, who have been raised with technology-based games. Data reveals student preference towards active, collaborative and technology-rich learning via digital games that bring added value to the educational process.

For students, satisfaction is a deciding factor in their decision to continue using such learning methods (Liao & Wang, 2011 ; Liao, 2015 ). Terzidou et al. ( 2012 ) discuss affective outcomes, especially the way interviewees feel before and after their participation in the game. Prior to participating, the interviewees report feelings of entertainment, fascination, and satisfaction before their participation in the game, which increase after use, indicating that participants find the use of 3D virtual game appealing.

Chen et al. ( 2010 ) reveal that the majority of students show negative feelings about online gaming. Shieh et al.’s ( 2010 ) mixed methodology research reveals that experimental groups show positive attitudes toward an innovative learning environment and outperform the control groups (in conventional classes). Some studies depict either neutral effects (Rajan et al., 2013 ; Beuk, 2015 ; Bolliger et al., 2015 ; Dankbaar et al., 2016 ; Strycker, 2016 ) or negative attitudes towards game use in the learning experience (Jiménez-Munguía & Luna-Reyes, 2012 ). Students experience more anxiety and boredom during conventional courses, which acts as an impediment to acquiring substantial problem-solving skills. The educational benefits of GBL are particularly apparent in subjects over which students report greater anxiety, where it can be proven that increased enjoyment levels correlate positively with improvements in deep learning and higher-order thinking (Crocco et al., 2016 ). Liarokapis, ( 2010 ) show Computer Science students evaluating a serious online game, and finding it a valuable pedagogical tool, which is both useful and entertaining.

Genre/familiarity issues

Students achieving high scores respond more positively to online games compared to low achieving students. Regarding genre perceptions, male students express more enthusiasm towards digital gaming than female students, or at least spend more time playing computer games compared to girls (Hainey et al., 2011 ). This may be due to the fact that boys tend to be more familiar with computers and web-based technologies. Girls may choose to avoid digital game-based learning methods, due to their negative preconceptions about gaming, preventing them from harnessing the positive aspects of online gaming (Chen et al., 2010 ). These studies indicate a difference in perception based on gender when engaging in DGBL environments. However, research by Riemer and Schrader ( 2015 ) concluded that female students reported a more positive attitude and perception of affective quality compared to the male students. Also, high assessment scores in web-based games depend on the professional experience of the players. Unexpectedly, in Dzeng et al.’s experimental survey ( 2014 ), despite the high test scores achieved in both web-based and paper-based games, students without work experience achieve the highest post-test scores, probably because they are more familiar with using technological tools. The experiments in Erhel and Jamet’s study ( 2013 ) indicate that serious games promote learning and motivation, provided they include features that prompt learners to actively process the educational content.

To sum up, games and simulations lead to improved affective outcomes for university students such as attitudes, motivation, emotional involvement, self-efficacy and satisfaction. A growing body of literature supports the positive attitude shown by students towards games and simulations, as they consider them essential instructional tools that provide motivation and engagement in an active learning environment.

Research interest in the incorporation of games and simulations in higher education is constantly developing (Girard et al., 2013 ). The pedagogical shift, from lecture-centred to student-centred environments and the increasing use of games as innovative learning technologies, calls for a transformation in higher education. In this respect, games and simulations are expected to play a significant role in the learning process. In the present study, the focus is on the positive effects of games and simulations on university students’ learning outcomes. The reviewed papers are diverse in terms of research objectives, theoretical background, methodological avenues adopted, game genres, scientific domain or delivery platform, and various perspectives concerning cognitive, behavioural and affective outcomes employed. Many articles ( n  = 123) are identified, providing either empirical results or offering meta-analytic evidence.

There seems to be a lack of shared definitions or taxonomy necessary for a common classification, which, therefore, results in terminological ambiguity (Klabbers, 2009 ). The majority of GBL researchers compare the effectiveness of implementing web-based learning games to conventional instructional options (Shin et al., 2015 ).

Mapping the results, empirical evidence is identified with respect to cognitive learning outcomes including knowledge acquisition, conceptual application, content understanding and action-directed learning. Games and simulations are educational interventions, which create a supportive environment in which students may acquire knowledge across subjects and disciplines. Students have the opportunity to better understand theoretical concepts, provided that games are used as a supplement in traditional lecture-based courses. Additionally, simulations are often perceived as enjoyable learning tools, which require active and collaborative participation and contribute to the improvement of critical thinking and reasoning, higher-order- and metacognitive thinking. Simulations provide students the opportunity to observe the outcomes of their actions, and take responsibility for decision-making via problem-solving competencies, thus leading to a more active, transformative and experiential reception of knowledge.

Another important finding is that simulations have positive effects on both students and instructors. Positive outcomes exist when instructors set achievable learning goals, interact with students promoting knowledge, support, facilitate, and motivate them to construct new game-based knowledge (Kovalik & Kuo, 2012 ; Lameras et al., 2016 ). Instructors are encouraged to design games and simulations in order to make students fully aware of game activities, providing all the while continuous instructional guidance. These results generally confirm the findings from prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, findings diverge slightly in Young et al.’s survey ( 2012 ), who claim that there is limited or no evidence about the effective implementation of games in the lecture-based curriculum.

This review also covers behavioural outcomes, mainly the development of social, emotional, and collaborative skills, helping students to foster strong relationships with peers, empowering them to collaborate and work in groups more efficiently, become organised, adapt to new tasks, and resolve emerging conflicts. Furthermore, reality-based scenarios and action-oriented game activities promote fruitful interactions and meaningful feedback, which leads to collaborative construction of knowledge. Overall, digital games and simulations urge students to interact not only with the game, but with their instructors and co-players as well. These results have been extensively covered in the literature review, with the majority of researchers agreeing with the current study’s results, confirming the positive effects of games and simulations on the behavioural level of learning outcomes (Bellotti et al., 2013 ; Tsekleves et al., 2014 ; Fu et al., 2016 ; Carenys & Moya, 2016 ).

However, although most reviews acknowledge the positive effects of games in behavioural outcomes, some reviewed studies contradict these positive findings, claiming that teamwork is a controversial issue when it comes to the improvement of knowledge sharing. The use of games seems to decrease opportunities for peer interaction and communication with instructors (Bolliger et al., 2015 ), whereas playing individually is sometimes considered better than working in a team (Merchant et al., 2014 ). Also, in some cases, games and simulations through collaborative activities distract students and hinder learning (Dankbaar et al., 2016 ).

The current review makes a significant contribution by investigating the affective outcomes when incorporating games and simulations in the curriculum, especially motivational and engagement outcomes, emotional development, satisfaction, attitude, emotion, self-assessment, and self-efficacy. Results show that games and simulations motivate, engage and promote effective learning goals by providing opportunities for learners to actively experience, practice, interact, and reflect in a collaborative, game-based, and learner-centred setting. The measures evaluating student attitudes reveal an increasingly positive trend towards games and simulations, especially in post-interventions (Bekebrede et al., 2011 ; Giovanello et al., 2013 ; Costa et al., 2014 ; Angelini, 2016 ; Geithner & Menzel, 2016 ).

To this end, there has been a purposeful highlighting of the instructor’s role as facilitator and motivator in this literature review. Through in-game activities and extended discussion, instructors promote student interaction and help them overcome the lack of understanding of content curriculum and achieve better learning outcomes. The literature also stresses the role of emotional development, which facilitates improvement of learning outcomes. Specifically, there seems to be a progression in student emotion, from negative feelings including uncertainty, anxiety, nervousness, and disappointment during pre-intervention, to positive feelings of satisfaction, confidence, excitement, enjoyment, effort, fascination, and enthusiasm during in-game and post-game interventions (Huang et al., 2010 ; Hummel et al., 2011 ; Liao & Wang, 2011 ; Terzidou et al., 2012 ; Woo, 2014 ; Liao et al., 2015 ).

Most of the pre-existing evidence is compatible with the findings of this systematic review (Sitzmann, 2011 ; Connolly et al., 2012 ; Wouters et al., 2013 ; Ritzhaupt et al., 2014 ; Gegenfurtner et al., 2014 ; Shin et al., 2015 ; Lameras et al., 2016 ; Carenys & Moya, 2016 ; Fu et al., 2016 ; Warren et al., 2016 ). Nevertheless, one study indicates that the overall positive perception of students depends on the different forms of games (Riemer & Schader, 2015 ), namely, simulations promote a less positive effect compared to quizzes and adventures. Some other studies diverge further in their findings, indicating either neutral (Rajan et al., 2013 ; Strycker, 2016 ; Franciosi, 2016 ) or negative student attitudes towards the use of games (Chen et al., 2010 ; Jiménez-Munguía & Luna-Reyes, 2012 ). Also, there are limited results on the effect of games on student self-efficacy, with one study demonstrating moderate post-training self-efficacy (Sitzmann, 2011 ).

Comparing the findings of the current study with the findings of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses leads to an interesting discussion. The results of the present review illustrate that the majority of the revised articles focus on different genres of games and simulations. The mostly represented genres are virtual/online games and simulations since they can enhance learning in certain disciplines, such as Computer Studies. This finding is in agreement with most of the previous reviews (e.g. Clark et al., 2015 ; Carenys & Moya, 2016 ; Warren et al., 2016 ). Also, simulation games are found to be popular in this review, due to the fact that they are implemented in authentic learning environments, namely in Health Sciences and Biology. Also, in this study, a great representation of role - playing games and business simulation games are obviously resulted from the previous articles, due to the fact that they are implemented in specific academic disciplines, such as Business Management and Marketing. Nevertheless, in this review, serious games are not represented as much as in other reviews (e.g.Tsekleves et al., 2014 ; Fu et al., 2016 ).

Additionally, this study concentrates on the positive effects of games and simulations on learning outcomes, a finding that is compatible with previous reviews (e.g. Bellotti et al., 2013 ; Lameras et al., 2016 ; Clark et al., 2015 . This review confirms that games and simulations contribute to cognitive learning outcomes, including knowledge acquisition, conceptual application, content understanding, and action-directed learning. Other previous reviewers echoed these findings (Smetana & Bell, 2012 ; Shin et al., 2015 ; Wouters et al., 2013 ; Fu et al., 2016 ) emphasizing the important role of games in knowledge acquisition and content understanding. It has been illustrated that university students benefit from the incorporation of games into the learning process, if used as a supplement in traditional lectures, a finding that complies with other reviews (Sitzmann, 2011 ; Wouters et al., 2013 ). However, simulations’ implementation is influenced by instructors’ guidance and motivation, as these factors encourage faculty to design simulations to achieve learning outcomes.

This review also sheds light on behavioural outcomes of using games in instructional design. The emphasis is on the positive effects, namely the development of social and soft skills, emotional skills, the empowerment of collaboration with peers, and the promotion of interaction and feedback, findings that are in line with past reviews (Shin et al., 2015 ; Carenys & Moya, 2016 ). Despite the positive behavioural effects of utilizing games, some reviews find collaboration and teamwork as a hindrance for learning. The application of games seems to decrease peer interaction and communication with faculty, whereas in Merchant et al.’s review ( 2014 ), playing individually is more preferable than playing collaboratively. The current review concludes by highlighting the affective outcomes, and the emphasis is given on motivational and engaging factors that lead to emotional development, satisfaction, self-efficacy and self-assessment, findings that are also documented in other reviews (Sitzmann, 2011 ; Hsu et al., 2012 ; Tsekleves et al., 2014 ).

To conclude, this review discusses the multitude of surveys on the cognitive, behavioural, and affective outcomes related to the use of playing games and simulations in higher education. The multi-dimensional analysis of the empirical data provides a framework for understanding the major outcomes of GBL. Despite the significant benefits in learning outcomes highlighted in this paper, the high cost of designing games and simulations is still a significant challenge. To overcome this cost barrier, governments, researchers, instructors, and game designers should collaborate to find affordable solutions, for enabling the development of games and simulations. Since this review does not concern itself with advanced aspects of learning, the focus should next turn to a metacognitive-oriented survey, which will study the promotion of metacognitive skills in students, such as self-regulation, self-reflection, self-awareness, evaluation, planning, building on the ideas of others, debating, and so forth.

Future research

Considering the above discussion points, and the importance of games and simulations as derived from the relevant literature, some suggested avenues for future research are as follows:

Researchers should focus on applying the relevant theoretical frameworks, such as cognitivism, constructivism, and socio-cultural perspectives to cognitive, behavioural and affective outcomes, respectively.

More research should be conducted investigating gender issues with respect to the effectiveness of games on developmental aspects of behaviour, such as scaffolding and immersion, to counteract the present gap in the existing literature.

Comparative surveys should be included with a design focused on different target groups (adult students, or K-12 students in laboratory conditions).

Evaluation models via a mixed-method design are encouraged, especially to investigate how game designers could tailor game designs to applying different learning preferences and styles.

University instructors should take a more active role in the alignment of games with the curriculum ensuring that games and simulations are implemented in a blended learning module (face-to-face, online material, etc.), or even acting as games masters, scaffolding virtual experiences to university learners.

Faculty should design games with a view to multiplayer cooperation to achieve effectiveness in learning outcomes. Students should also be involved as co-designers, recommending innovative ideas and radical approaches in an effort to meet their own needs. An innovative approach is the adoption of metagames (Young et al., 2012 ), which consist of additional learning resources (blogs, wikis, etc.) encouraging collaboration between players.

This study makes a significant contribution to research, since no other literature review or meta-analysis has been conducted so far investigating educational and web-based games and simulations with such an extensive subject and discipline coverage in higher education. Today’s demand for student-centred teaching methods to develop highly qualified learners, capable of learning in an active and collaborative environment, calls for the deployment of game-based activities and simulations that will enable them to face the challenges of the dawning era.

Adams, D. M., Pilegard, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Evaluating the cognitive consequences of playing portal for a short duration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54 (2), 173–195.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmad, S. M. S., Fauzi, N. F. M., Hashim, A. A., & Zainon, W. M. N. W. (2013). A study on the effectiveness of computer games in teaching and learning. International Journal of Advanced Studies in Computers, Science and Engineering, 2 (1), 1.

Google Scholar  

Aldrich, C. (2009). Virtual worlds, simulations, and games for education: A unifying view. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5 (5), 1.

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Anderson, E. F., McLoughlin, L., Liarokapis, F., Peters, C., Petridis, P., & Freitas, S. D. (2009). Serious games in cultural heritage. In M. Ashley & F. Liarokapis (Eds.), VAST 2009: 10th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 22-25 September 2009 (pp. 29–48). St. Julians, Malta: Eurographics Association.

Andreu Andrés, M. A., & García Casas, M. (2011). Perceptions of gaming as experiential learning by engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27 (4), 795–804.

Angelini, M. L. (2016). Integration of the pedagogical models “simulation” and “flipped classroom” in teacher instruction. SAGE Open, 6 (1). doi: 10.1177/2158244016636430 .

Angelini, M. L., García-Carbonell, A., & Martínez-Alzamora, N. (2015). Estudio cuantitativo discreto sobre la simulación telemática en el aprendizaje del ingles. [Quantitative study about telematic simulation in learning]. RIE Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 69 (2), 51–68.

Arias Aranda, D., Haro Domiguez, C., & Romerosa Martinez, M. M. (2010). An innovative approach to the learning process in management: The use of simulators in higher education. REVISTA DE EDUCACION, 353 , 333–334.

Ariffin, M., Oxley, A., & Sulaiman, S. (2014). Evaluating game-based learning effectiveness in higher education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123 , 20–27 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1393 . Accessed 11 Sept 2016.

Auman, C. (2011). Using simulation games to increase student and instructor engagement. College Teaching, 59 (4), 154–161.

Backlund, P., & Hendrix, M. (2013). Educational games-are they worth the effort? A literature survey of the effectiveness of serious games. In Games and virtual worlds for serious applications (VS-GAMES), 2013 5th international conference on (pp. 1-8). IEEE.

Badea, M. (2015). English classes and effectiveness of games in higher education. Journal Plus Education, 13 (2), 79–85.

Bausch, L., Beran, J., Cahanes, S., & Krug, L. (2008). Physiological responses while playing Nintendo Wii sports. Journal of Undergraduate Kinesiology Research, 3 , 19–25.

Beckem, J. M., & Watkins, M. (2012). Bringing life to learning: Immersive experiential learning simulations for online and blended courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16 (5), 61–70.

Bekebrede, G., Warmelink, H. J. G., & Mayer, I. S. (2011). Reviewing the need for gaming in education to accommodate the net generation. Computers & Education, 57 (2), 1521–1529.

Bellotti, F., Kapralos, B., Lee, K., Moreno-Ger, P., & Berta, R. (2013). Assessment in and of serious games: An overview. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2013 , 1.

Beuk, F. (2015). Sales simulation games student and instructor perceptions. Journal of Marketing Education , 1-13 (2015). Doi: 0273475315604686.

Biddiss, E., & Irwin, J. (2010). Active video games to promote physical activity in children and youth. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164 , 664–672.

Boeker M, Andel., P, Vach, W., & Frankenschmidt, A. (2013). Game-based E-learning is more effective than a conventional instructional method: A randomized controlled trial with third-year medical students. PloS One 8(12): e82328. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082328 .

Bolliger, D. U., Mills, D., White, J., & Kohyama, M. (2015). Japanese students’ perceptions of digital game use for English-language learning in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53 (3), 384–408 0735633115600806.

Buckless, F. A., Krawczyk, K., & Showalter, D. S. (2014). Using virtual worlds to simulate real-world audit procedures. Issues in Accounting Education, 29 (3), 389–417.

Çankaya, S., & Karamete, A. (2009). The effects of educational computer games on students’ attitudes towards mathematics course and educational computer games. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1 (1), 145–149.

Carenys, J., & Moya, S. (2016). Digital game-based learning in accounting and business education. Accounting Education , 25 (6), 598-651.

Cela-Ranilla, J. M., Esteve-Mon, F. M., Esteve-González, V., & Gisbert-Cervera, M. (2014). Developing self-management and teamwork using digital games in 3D simulations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (6), 634–651.

Chang, Y. C., Peng, H. Y., & Chao, H. C. (2010). Examining the effects of learning motivation and of course design in an instructional simulation game. Interactive Learning Environments, 18 (4), 319–339.

Chaves, R. O., von Wangenheim, C. G., Furtado, J. C. C., Oliveira, S. R. B., Santos, A., & Favero, E. L. (2015). Experimental evaluation of a serious game for teaching software process modeling. IEEE Transactions on Education, 58 (4), 289–296.

Chen, L., Chen, T.-L., & Liu, H.-K. J. (2010). Perception of young adults on online games: Implications for higher education. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9 (3), 76–84.

Chen, C. H., Wang, K. C., & Lin, Y. H. (2015). The Comparison of solitary and collaborative modes of game-based learning on Students' science learning and motivation. Educational Technology & Society, 18 (2), 237–248.

Chiang, Y. T., Lin, S. S. J., Cheng, C. Y., & Liu, E. Z. F. (2011). Exploring online game players’ flow experiences and positive affect. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10 (1), 106–114.

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2015). Digital games, design, and learning a systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 86 (1), 79–122 0034654315582065.

Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of the empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59 (2), 661–686.

Connolly, T., & Stansfield, M. (2006). Using games-based eLearning technologies in overcoming difficulties in teaching information systems. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5 (1), 459–476.

Connolly, T. M., Stansfield, M., & Hainey, T. (2007). An application of games-based learning within software engineering. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (3), 416–428.

Costa, G. J. M. D., Kikot, T., Fernandes, S., & Águas, P. (2014). Why use-centered game-based learning in higher education? The case of cesim simbrand. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics , 2 (3), 229-241.

Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & Sáez-López, J.M. (2016). Game-based learning and gamification in initial teacher training in the social sciences: An experiment with MinecraftEdu. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 13 (1), 1 (2016). doi: 10.1186/s41239-016-0003-4 .

Crocco, F., Offenholley, K., & Hernandez, C. (2016). A proof-of-concept study of game-based learning in higher education. Simulation & Gaming, 47 (4), 403-422 (2016). Doi: 1046878116632484.

Cvetić, B., Vasiljević, D., & Danilović, M. (2013). DRP game: New tool to enhance teaching and learning in logistics and supply chain management. In 1st Logistics International Conference (pp. 299-303).

Dankbaar, M. E. W., Alsma, J., Jansen, E. E. H., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., van Saase, J. L. C. M., & Schuit, S. C. E. (2016). An experimental study on the effects of a simulation game on students’ clinical cognitive skills and motivation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21 (3), 505–521.

DePorres, D., & Livingston, R. E. (2016). Launching new doctoral students: Embracing the Hero’s journey. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 43 (1), 121–128.

de Wit-Zuurendonk, L. D., & Oei, S. G. (2011). Serious gaming in women’s health care. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 118 (s3), 17–21.

Denholm, J., Protopsaltis, A., & de Freitas, S. (2012). The value of team-based mixed-reality (TBMR) games in higher education. In European Conference on Games Based Learning (p. 571). Academic Conferences international limited.

de Smale, S., Overmans, T., Jeuring, J., & van de Grint, L. (2015). The effect of simulations and games on learning objectives in tertiary education: A systematic review. In Games and Learning Alliance 4 th International Conference , GALA 2015 Rome.

Divjak, B., & Tomić, D. (2011). The impact of game-based learning on the achievement of learning goals and motivation for learning mathematics-literature review. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 35 (1), 15–30.

Dudzinski, M., Greenhill, D., Kayyali, R., Nabhani, S., Philip, N., Caton, H., Ishtiaq, S., & Gatsinzi, F. (2013). The design and evaluation of a multiplayer serious game for pharmacy students. In European Conference on Games Based Learning (p. 140). Academic Conferences international limited.

Dzeng, R. J., Lin, K. Y., & Wang, P. R. (2014). Building a construction procurement negotiation training game model: Learning experiences and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45 (6), 1115–1135.

Elias, A. (2014). Simulating the European Union: Reflections on module design. International Studies Perspectives, 15 (4), 407–422.

Erhel, S., & Jamet, E. (2013). Digital game-based learning: Impact of instructions and feedback on motivation and learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 67 , 156–167.

Farrington, J. (2011). From the research: Myths worth dispelling: Seriously, the game is up. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24 , 105–110.

Felicia, P. (2011). Assessing how game-based learning is perceived in Irish education. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance: ECGBL 2011 (p. 168). Academic Conferences limited.

Flanagan, B., Nestel, D., & Joseph, M. (2004). Making patient safety the focus: Crisis resource management in the undergraduate curriculum. Medical Education, 38 (1), 56–66.

Franciosi, S. J. (2016). Acceptability of RPG simulators for foreign language training in Japanese higher education. Simulation & Gaming, 47 (1), 31–50 (2015). Doi: 1046878115608621.

Fu, K., Hainey, T., & Baxter, G. (2016). A systematic literature review to identify empirical evidence on the use of computer games in business education and training. In 10th European Conference on Games Based Learning: ECGBL 2016 (p. 232).

García Carbonell, A., & Watts Hooge, F. I. (2012). Investigación empírica del aprendizaje con simulación telemática. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación (versión digital)., 59 (3), 1–11.

Gegenfurtner, A., Quesada-Pallarès, C., & Knogler, M. (2014). Digital simulation-based training: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45 (6), 1097–1114.

Geithner, S., & Menzel, D. (2016). Effectiveness of learning through experience and reflection in a Project Management simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 47 (2), 228–256 (2016). Doi: 1046878115624312.

Giovanello, S. P., Kirk, J. A., & Kromer, M. K. (2013). Student perceptions of a role-playing simulation in an introductory international relations course. Journal of Political Science Education, 9 (2), 197–208.

Girard, C., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2013). Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29 (3), 207–219.

Gold, S. (2016). Design and effectiveness of a self-study pedagogical approach to using a simulation game in the classroom. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 43 (1).

Gómez, M. (2014). Ciencias Sociales y gamificación, ¿una pareja con futuro? In J. Pagès (Ed.), Una mirada al pasado y un proyecto de futuro: investigación e innovación en didáctica de las ciencias sociales (pp. 257–262). Barcelona: Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona; Asociación Universitaria de Profesores de Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales.

Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The Design of Games Based Learning Environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40 (1), 23–39.

Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Stansfield, M., & Boyle, E. A. (2011). Evaluation of a game to teach requirements collection and analysis in software engineering at tertiary education level. Computers & Education, 56 (1), 21–35.

Halpern, D. F., Millis, K., Graesser, A. C., Butler, H., Forsyth, C., & Cai, Z. (2012). Operation ARA: A computerized learning game that teaches critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7 (2), 93–100.

Hämäläinen, R., & Oksanen, K. (2014). Collaborative 3D learning games for future learning: Teachers’ instructional practices to enhance shared knowledge construction among students. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23 (1), 81–101.

Hannig, A., Kuth, N., Özman, M., Jonas, S., & Spreckelsen, C. (2012). eMedOffice: A web-based collaborative serious game for teaching optimal design of a medical practice. BMC Medical Education, 12 (1), 1.

Hannig, A., Lemos, M., Spreckelsen, C., Ohnesorge-Radtke, U., & Rafai, N. (2013). Skills-o-mat: Computer supported interactive motion-and game-based training in mixing alginate in dental education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48 (3), 315–343.

Helle, L., Nivala, M., Kronqvist, P., Gegenfurtner, A., Björk, P., & Säljö, R. (2011). Traditional microscopy instruction versus process-oriented virtual microscopy instruction: A naturalistic experiment with control group. Diagnostic Pathology, 6 (1), 1.

Hess, T., & Gunter, G. (2013). Serious game-based and nongame-based online courses: Learning experiences and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44 (3), 372–385.

Hou, H. T. (2015). Integrating cluster and sequential analysis to explore learners’ flow and behavioral patterns in a simulation game with situated-learning context for science courses: A video-based process exploration. Computers in Human Behavior, 48 , 424–435.

Hou, H. T., & Li, M. C. (2014). Evaluating multiple aspects of a digital educational problem-solving-based adventure game. Computers in Human Behavior, 30 , 29–38.

Hsu, Y.-C., Ho, H. N. J., Tsai, C.-C., Hwang, G.-J., Chu, H.-C., Wang, C.-Y., & Chen, N.-S. (2012). Research trends in technology-based learning from 2000 to 2009: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (2), 354–370.

Huang, W. H., Huang, W. Y., & Tschopp, J. (2010). Sustaining iterative game playing processes in DGBL: The relationship between motivational processing and outcome processing. Computers & Education, 55 (2), 789–797.

Hummel, H. G., Van Houcke, J., Nadolski, R. J., Van der Hiele, T., Kurvers, H., & Löhr, A. (2011). Scripted collaboration in serious gaming for complex learning: Effects of multiple perspectives when acquiring water management skills. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01122.x .

Ibrahim, R., Wahab, S., Yusoff, R. C. M., Khalil, K., Desaru, I. N. S. T. E. D. T., & Jaafar, A. (2011). Student perceptions of educational games in higher education: An empirical study. Issues in Information Systems, 12 (1), 120–133.

Jiménez-Munguía, M. C., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2012). Development of analytical abilities and collaborative learning assessment in undergraduate students through simulation games. In Electrical Communications and Computers (CONIELECOMP), 2012 22nd International Conference on (pp. 12–16). IEEE.

Jones, R., & Bursens, P. (2015). The effects of active learning environments: How simulations trigger affective learning. European Political Science, 14 (3), 254–265.

Kapralos, B., Hogan, M., Pribetic, A. I., & Dubrowski, A. (2011). Virtual simulations and serious games in a laptop-based university: Gauging faculty and student perceptions. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 8 (2), 106–120.

Ke, F., Xie, K., & Xie, Y. (2015). Game-based learning engagement: A theory-and data-driven exploration. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12314 .

Kikot, T., Costa, G., Magalhães, R., & Fernandes, S. (2013). Simulation games as tools for integrative dynamic learning: The case of the management course at the University of Algarve. Procedia Technology, 9 , 11–21.

Klabbers, J. H. G. (2009). Terminological ambiguity game and simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 40 (4), 446–463.

Kleinheksel, A. J. (2014). Transformative learning through virtual patient simulations: Predicting critical student reflections. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 10 (6), e301–e308.

Kovalik, C. L., & Kuo, C. L. (2012). Innovation Diffusion: Learner benefits and instructor insights with the Diffusion Simulation Game. Simulation & Gaming. 43 (6), 803-824.

Lameras, P., Arnab, S., Dunwell, I., Stewart, C., Clarke, S., & Petridis, P. (2016). Essential features of serious games design in higher education: Linking learning attributes to game mechanics. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12467 .

Lancaster, R. J. (2014). Serious game simulation as a teaching strategy in pharmacology. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 10 (3), e129–e137.

Li, Z. Z., Cheng, Y. B., & Liu, C. C. (2013). A constructionism framework for designing game-like learning systems: Its effect on different learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44 (2), 208–224.

Li, M. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Game-based learning in science education: A review of relevant research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22 (6), 877–898.

Liarokapis, F., Anderson, E. F., Oikonomou, A. (2010). Serious games for use in a higher education environment. In Proceedings of the Emerging Games Platforms, Technologies and Applications Workshop (EGPTA’10), 15th Int‟l Computer Games Conference: AI, Interactive Multimedia, Virtual Worlds and Serious Games Louisville, Kentucky, USA (pp. 28-31).

Liao, Y. W., Huang, Y. M., & Wang, Y. S. (2015). Factors affecting students’ continued usage intention toward business simulation games an empirical study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53 (2), 260–283.

Liao, Y.-W., & Wang, Y.-S. (2011). Investigating the factors affecting students’ continuance intention to use business simulation games in the context of digital learning. In International Conference on Innovation, Management and Service (pp. 119-124).

Lin, Y. L. (2016). Differences among different DGBLs learners. International Journal of Business and Management, 11 (1), 181–188.

Lin, Y. L., & Tu, Y. Z. (2012). The values of college students in business simulation game: A means-end chain approach. Computers & Education, 58 (4), 1160–1170.

Liu, C. C., Cheng, Y. B., & Huang, C. W. (2011). The effect of simulation games on the learning of computational problem solving. Computers & Education, 57 (3), 1907–1918.

Ljungkvist, P., & Mozelius, P. (2012). Educational games for self learning in introductory programming courses-a straightforward design approach with progression mechanisms. In Proceedings Of The 6th European Conference On Games Based Learning, ECGBL (pp. 285-293).

Lu, J., Hallinger, P., & Showanasai, P. (2014). Simulation-based learning in management education: A longitudinal quasi-experimental evaluation of instructional effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 33 (3), 218–244.

Lukosch, H., Kurapati, S., Groen, D., & Verbraeck, A. (2016). Microgames for situated learning a case study in interdependent planning. Simulation & Gaming, 47 (3), 346–367 (2016). Doi: 1046878116635468.

Mayer, I., Warmelink, H., & Bekebrede, G. (2013). Learning in a game-based virtual environment: A comparative evaluation in higher education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38 (1), 85–106.

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The three P’s of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalization, participation, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20 (1), 10–27.

Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70 , 29–40.

Mueller, F., Agamanolis, S., & Picard, R. (2003). Exertion interfaces: Sports over a distance for social bonding and fun. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 561–568). ACM.

Nadolny, L., & Halabi, A. (2015). Student participation and achievement in a large lecture course with game-based learning. Simulation & Gaming, 47 (1), 51–72 (2015). Doi: 1046878115620388.

Navidad, F. C. (2013). Students' devised classroom games-simulations: An innovative tool on mathematics achievement and motivation in nursing students. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, 60 , 14–18. doi: 10.7763/IPEDR .

Nkhoma, M., Calbeto, J., Sriratanaviriyakul, N., Muang, T., Ha Tran, Q., & Kim Cao, T. (2014). Towards an understanding of real-time continuous feedback from simulation games. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 11 (1), 45–62.

Pasin, F., & Giroux, H. (2011). The impact of a simulation game on operations management education. Computers & Education, 57 (1), 1240–1254.

Peterson, M. (2010). Computerized games and simulations in computer-assisted language learning: A meta-anlysis of research. Simulation & Gaming, 41 (1), 72–93.

Pløhn, T. (2013). Nuclear mayhem-a pervasive game designed to support learning. In European Conference on Games Based Learning (p. 475). Academic Conferences international limited.

Poikela, P., Ruokamo, H., & Teräs, M. (2015). Comparison of meaningful learning characteristics in simulated nursing practice after traditional versus computer-based simulation method: A qualitative videography study. Nurse Education Today, 35 (2), 373–382.

Rajan, P., Raju, P., & Sankar, C.S. (2013). Serious Games to Improve Student Learning in Engineering Classes . Paper presented at 120 th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , 23-26 June, 2013, Atlanta, Georgia. https://peer.asee.org/22448 Accessed 2 Oct 2016.

Ranchhod, A., Gurău, C., Loukis, E., & Trivedi, R. (2014). Evaluating the educational effectiveness of simulation games: A value generation model. Information Sciences, 264 , 75–90.

Renken, M., Peffer, M., Otrel-Cass, K., Girault, I., & Chiocarriello, A. (2016). Computer simulations on a multidimensional continuum: A definition and examples. In Simulations as Scaffolds in Science Education (pp. 5-14). London: Springer. 

Riemer, V., & Schrader, C. (2015). Learning with quizzes, simulations, and adventures: Students' attitudes, perceptions and intentions to learn with different types of serious games. Computers & Education, 88 , 160–168.

Ritzhaupt, A., Poling, N., Frey, C., & Johnson, M. (2014). A synthesis on digital games in education: What the research literature says from 2000 to 2010. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 25 (2), 261–280.

Robertson, B., Schumacher, L., Gosman, G., Kanfer, R., Kelley, M., & DeVita, M. (2009). Simulation-based crisis team training for multidisciplinary obstetric providers. Simululation in Healthcare, 4 (2), 77–83. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3181917cd .

Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58 (1), 136–153.

Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals . Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

Sarabia-Cobo, C. M., Alconero-Camarero, A. R., Lavín-Alconero, L., & Ibáñez-Rementería, I. (2016). Assessment of a learning intervention in palliative care based on clinical simulations for nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 45 , 219–224.

Sauve, L., Renaud, L., Kaufman, D., & Marquis, J. S. (2007). Distinguishing between games and simulation: A systematic review. Education Technology & Society, 10 (3), 247–256.

Sawyer, B. (2002). Serious games: Improving public policy through game-based learning and simulation . USA: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Seng, W. Y., & Yatim, M. H. M. (2014). Computer game as learning and teaching tool for object oriented programming in higher education institution. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123 , 215–224.

Shieh, R. S., Chang, W., & Tang, J. (2010). The impact of implementing technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) in university physics in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher (De La Salle University Manila), 19 (3).

Shin, S., Park, J. H., & Kim, J. H. (2015). Effectiveness of patient simulation in nursing education: Meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today, 35 (1), 176–182.

Siewiorek, A., Saarinen, E., Lainema, T., & Lehtinen, E. (2012). Learning leadership skills in a simulated business environment. Computers & Education, 58 , 121–135.

Siewiorek, A., Gegenfurtner, A., Lainema, T., Saarinen, E., & Lehtinen, E. (2013). The effects of computer-simulation game training on participants’ opinions on leadership styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44 (6), 1012–1035.

Silvia, C. (2012). The impact of simulations on higher-level learning. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18 (2), 397–422.

Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64 (2), 489–528.

Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (9), 1337–1370.

Söderström, T., Häll, L., Nilsson, T., & Ahlqvist, J. (2014). Computer simulation training in health care education fuelling reflection-in-action? Simulation & Gaming, 45 (6), 805–828.

Stanley, D., & Latimer, K. (2011). ‘the Ward’: A simulation game for nursing students. Nurse Education in Practice, 11 (1), 20–25.

Strycker, J. (2016). Utilizing a simulation within an online school technology leadership course. Online Learning Journal, 20 (1), 130–144.

Swanson, E. A., Nicholson, A. C., Boese, T. A., Cram, E., Stineman, A. M., & Tew, K. (2011). Comparison of selected teaching strategies incorporating simulation and student outcomes. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 7 (3), e81–e90.

Tanner, J. R., Stewart, G., Totaro, M. W., & Hargrave, M. (2012). Business simulation games: Effective teaching tools or window dressing? American Journal of Business Education (Online), 5 (2), 115.

Tao, Y. H., Yeh, C. C. R., & Hung, K. C. (2015). Validating the learning cycle models of business simulation games via student perceived gains in skills and knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 18 (1), 77–90.

Terzidou, T., Tsiatsos, T., Dae, A., Samaras, O., & Chasanidou, A. (2012). Utilizing virtual worlds for game based learning: Grafica, a 3D educational game in second life. In 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 624-628). IEEE.

Tiwari, S. R., Nafees, L., & Krishnan, O. (2014). Simulation as a pedagogical tool: Measurement of impact on perceived effective learning. The International Journal of Management Education, 12 (3), 260–270.

Tsekleves, E., Cosmas, J., & Aggoun, A. (2014). Benefits, barriers and guideline recommendations for the implementation of serious games in education for stakeholders and policymakers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47 (1), 164–183. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12223 .

van Roessel, L., & van Mastrigt-Ide J. (2011). Collaboration and team composition in applied game creation processes. DiGRA '11, proceedings of the 2011 DiGRA international conference, think design play, 1-14.

von Wangenheim, C. G., Savi, R., & Borgatto, A. F. (2012). DELIVER!–an educational game for teaching earned value management in computing courses. Information and Software Technology, 54 (3), 286–298.

Vos, L., & Brennan, R. (2010). Marketing simulation games: Student and lecturer perspectives. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 28 (7), 882–897.

Wang, C., Huang, C. C., Lin, S. J., & Chen, J. W. (2016). Using multimedia tools and high-fidelity simulations to improve medical students' resuscitation performance: An observational study. BMJ Open, 6 (9), e012195.

Wang, L. C., & Chen, M. P. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preference-matching on flow experience and programming performance in game-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47 (1), 39–52.

Warren, J. N., Luctkar-Flude, M., Godfrey, C., & Lukewich, J. (2016). A systematic review of the effectiveness of simulation-based education on satisfaction and learning outcomes in nurse practitioner programs. Nurse Education Today, 46 , 99–108.

White, B., Kahriman, A., Luberice, L., & Idleh, F. (2010). Evaluation of software for introducing protein structure. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38 (5), 284–289.

Willoughby, T. (2008). A short-term longitudinal study of internet and computer game use by adolescent boys and girls: Prevalence, frequency of use, and psychosocial predictors. Developmental Psychology, 44 (1), 195–204.

Woo, J. C. (2014). Digital game-based learning supports student motivation, cognitive success, and performance outcomes. Educational Technology & Society, 17 (3), 291–307.

Wouters, P., & van Oostendorp, H. (2013). A meta-analytic review of the role of instructional support in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 60 (1), 412–425.

Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., & Van Der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (2), 249–265.

Yang, J. C., Chen, C. H., & Jeng, M. C. (2010). Integrating video-capture virtual reality technology into a physically interactive learning environment for English learning. Computers & Education, 55 (3), 1346–1356.

Yang, J. C., Chien, K. H., & Liu, T. C. (2012). A digital game-based learning system energy for energy education: An energy conservation pet. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (2), 27–37.

Yang, Y. C., & Chang, C. L. (2013). Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 68 , 334–344.

Yin, C., Song, Y., Tabata, Y., Ogata, H., & Hwang, G. J. (2013). Developing and implementing a framework of participatory simulation for mobile learning using scaffolding. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (2), 137–150.

Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Simeoni, Z., Tran, M., & Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle a review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82 (1), 61–89.

Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21 (3), 317–331.

Zyda, M. (2005). From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer, 38 (9), 25–32.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was sponsored by Laureate International Universities, through the “David Wilson Award for Excellence in Teaching and Learning”, won by Dr. Dimitrios Vlachopoulos (2015-2017).

Authors' contributions

DV conceived the study. AM conducted the literature review and prepared the summaries and critical reflection on the corresponding literature. DV participated in the design of the study and analysis. AM participated in the preparation of the article's structure, graphs, and reference list. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interest

The authors declared that they have no competing interest.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Laureate Online Education / European University Cyprus, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Dimitrios Vlachopoulos

European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Agoritsa Makri

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitrios Vlachopoulos .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Vlachopoulos, D., Makri, A. The effect of games and simulations on higher education: a systematic literature review. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 14 , 22 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0062-1

Download citation

Received : 28 November 2016

Accepted : 30 May 2017

Published : 10 July 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0062-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Game-based learning
• Digital games
• Pedagogical use
• Higher education
• Learning outcomes
• Cognitive goals
• Behavioural goals
• Affective goals

• Open access
• Published: 19 October 2020

Exploring the trends of educational virtual reality games: a systematic review of empirical studies

• Solomon Sunday Oyelere   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9895-6796 1 ,
• Nacir Bouali 1 , 2 ,
• Rogers Kaliisa 3 ,
• George Obaido 4 ,
• Abdullahi Abubakar Yunusa 5 &
• Ebunayo R. Jimoh 6  

Smart Learning Environments volume  7 , Article number:  31 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

25k Accesses

47 Citations

15 Altmetric

Metrics details

Virtual Reality (VR) and educational games are emerging technologies mediating a rapid transformation in the educational world. However, few studies have systematically analyzed Educational Virtual Reality Games (EVRGs) and how they have been applied in educational settings. This study reviewed 31 articles published in high impact journals and educational conference proceedings to unravel the technological, pedagogical, and gaming characteristics of contemporary EVRGs. The results show the predominance of Oculus Rift headsets and HTC Vive as the main technology used in EVRGs. Moreover, the analysis revealed that the pedagogical application of the majority of EVRGs was developed for all levels of education (e.g. tertiary, K-12, lifelong learning), with the specific target audience of each game based on the desired learning outcome. Furthermore, the application of EVRGs has primarily focused on out of class use, with healthcare education topics dominating the topics taught using EVRGs. Based on our findings, we highlight some key implications and suggestions to advance the field of EVRGs.

Introduction

This study explores the advances of educational virtual reality games (EVRGs) and expounds its important developmental features such as technology, pedagogy and gaming. The rapid development in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has revolutionized the computing industry and propelled a paradigm shift in the pedagogy of teaching and learning (Kaliisa, Edward, & Julia, 2019 ; Oyelere, Suhonen, Wajiga, & Sutinen, 2018 ). Contemporary computer hardware and software have improved significantly in size, speed, and precision, and a key to the creation of immersive technological applications (Bekele, Pierdicca, Frontoni, Malinverni, & Gain, 2018 ; Voinea, Girbacia, Postelnicu, & Marto, 2018 ). Virtual reality (VR) is a technology that has recently gained prominence as one of the core features of modern ‘high-tech’ with wide-ranging applications, including education (Virvou & Katsionis, 2008 ), gaming (Zyda, 2005 ), entertainment (Liu, Cheok, Mei-Ling, & Theng, 2007 ), military (Lele, 2013 ), skills training (Aggarwal, Black, Hance, Darzi, & Cheshire, 2006 ), tourism (Tussyadiah, Wang, Jung, & Dieck, 2018 ), as well as physical exercise (Finkelstein et al., 2011 ). VR is computer-simulated, which gives users the illusion of being physically present in the world and uses not only sight but also sound and touch to fully engage a user in the virtual world (Mandal, 2013 ).

In this paper, we refer to VR as the experience in which a user is fully immersed into either a virtual environment using head-mounted displays (headsets) or projection-based displays. A user through the utilization of an avatar (Carvalheiro, Nóbrega, da Silva, & Rodrigues, 2016 ) can as a result, navigate this world. This functionality differs from 3D environments visualized using headsets, but the user is only able to experience the virtual world from a fixed perspective and an onscreen visualizable three-dimensional (3D) environment. In this research, educational games are defined as the games designed, implemented, and evaluated with the purpose of teaching, or aiding in the instruction of a subject, or aiding in the learning of a specific skill within a formal or an informal setting (Oyelere, Suhonen, & Laine, 2017 ; Pavlidis & Markantonatou, 2018 ). We define Educational Virtual Reality Games (EVRGs) as educational games that exploit the 3D stereoscopic display, using a wearable headset or a Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE) system to teach or aid in the instruction of a specific topic. With such a definition non-immersive educational VR games, wherein the user navigates a virtual world using an avatar controlled by a mouse and a keyboard and/or a joystick, have been excluded.

VR technology has become increasingly a popular teaching and learning support tool across different disciplines. It provides an opportunity for students and teachers to experience, as well as interact, with real-time learning phenomena, something that would have been almost impossible in the physical world (Shin, 2017 ; Vesisenaho et al., 2019 ). VR allows for the use of multiple senses (e.g., touch, sense of heat, smell), which are used simultaneously during the learning process. In this regard, this could improve the activeness and mental alertness of both the students and teachers. This claim is supported by Lee and Wong ( 2014 ) who concluded that there is a significant interaction effect between the learning mode and the spatial ability of the students. Furthermore, other studies have established the pedagogical benefits of VR, such as the ability to support students with diverse learning styles in gaining cognitive achievement (Lee, Wong, & Fung, 2010 ), improving spatial thinking (Cohen & Hegarty, 2014 ), learning object-oriented programming concepts (Bouali, Nygren, Oyelere, Suhonen, & Cavalli-Sforza, 2019 ), and in facilitating collaboration (Greenwald et al., 2017 ).

The goal of this study was to systematically review the trends of EVRGs from the perspective of their technological, pedagogical, and gaming characteristics. The study draws on research conducted by Laine ( 2018 ), by focusing on studies that describe the design, implementation, and evaluation of EVRGs. Since Laine’s ( 2018 ) study focuses strictly on mobile Augmented Reality Games (ARs), our work provides a slightly different and more comprehensive perspective by focusing on EVRGs. A review of previous studies of EVRGs would make it possible to understand in which direction the field is heading and how future EVRGs should be designed to best fit the needs of both the teacher and students to improve educational outcomes. We argue that a review of EVRGs is needed (i) to understand and conceptualize the existing body of EVRGs; (ii) to provide evidence about the technologies that support the implementation of EVRGs across a wide range of settings and techniques used; (iii) to explore the teaching and learning attributes of VR games and how different pedagogical characteristics such as context, topics taught, and types of learners have changed over the years. We further aim (iv) to develop a set of pointers to researchers and practitioners (e.g. teachers) interested in conducting and applying VR games in research and pedagogical practice; and (v) to understand the characteristics of contemporary games to supporting educational developments. To achieve these goals, we, therefore, seek to answer the research question: What are the technological, pedagogical, and gaming characteristics of contemporary educational VR games?

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: presentation of related work, the methodology, and conclusion with several remarks that reinforce the critical points regarding the use of educational VR games.

Related work

Relationship between vr and education.

The educational process requires the learner to grasp and comprehend abstract concepts and appreciate scenarios, as well as to understand situations which are far removed from the confines of the classroom. Duffy and Jonassen ( 1992 ) argue that the teaching of abstract phenomena, analogy and lived experiences are used to describe and ease through abstract concepts from commonly observable reality. However, over the last decade, the application of emerging technologies in education have revolutionized the pedagogical or teaching processes in the classroom, to explain better and to provide comprehension of abstract concepts.

VR is an emerging technology that has gained traction in education. Educationists have discovered that VR allows the user to interact with a computer-generated 3D model or virtual environment (Christou, 2010 ) which fosters the understanding of the imaginary world on a realistic scale. This makes it a useful tool for teaching and learning by transforming the way educational content is delivered (Hentsch, 2018 ). A study by Lee and Wong ( 2008 ), described VR as a technology that aids student learning through the visualization of information and engagement, which affords a learner with the opportunity to experience subject matter or concepts that are not easily discernible.

VR does not only relate positively to education but aligns with the constructivism school of thought, which stipulates that humans construct knowledge by learning from experience. The constructivist theory advocates that learning through interaction with sensory data allows knowledge construction from experience for which VR is suited. Christou ( 2010 ), chronicled broad application areas of VR in educational contexts used in the enhancement of core curricula in schools and colleges, application of VR in museums, edutainment, demonstrations, simulation, and training.

Comparison of VR and 3D games in education

In the past few decades, game-based learning has been an integral part of the educational process (Boboc, Orzan, Stoica, & Niculescu-Ciocan, 2018 ; Hwang, Wu, Chen, & Tu, 2016 ; Xenos, Maratou, Ntokas, Mettouris, & Papadopoulos, 2017 ). EVRGs are designed to assist users to grasp the concepts of a specific subject, to expand their knowledge, and to facilitate participation. A typical example of educational virtual reality game is GridlockED, which was developed by Tsoy et al. ( 2019 ) as a collaborative learning game, targeted for medical trainees, to acquire the skills on how to treat and triage a patient. Modern educational games are played using high-end video technology such as stereoscopic 3D, or through a Head-Mounted VR environment (Snowdon & Oikonomou, 2018 ). These technologies use a spatial depth on the screen and offer rich learning experiences for the user.

A study by Sampaio, Ferreira, Rosário, and Martins ( 2010 ) described 3D technology as that which creates spatial depth with 3D pop-up visualizations so that objects contained in the game may appear closer to the player with the use of dedicated 3D-capable glasses. In comparison to the 3D technology, Triberti, Villani, and Riva ( 2016 ) described VR as a computer-simulated reality that uses a 3D environment whereby the player interacts with using a specialized head-mounted display (e.g. Oculus Rift, Samsung Gear VR, Google Cardboard etc.) that shows visual effects to the eyes. Unlike 3D, where the user is a just a viewer, VR allows for the user to become part of a story, offering an untethered immersive experience (Bradshaw, 2016 ). Therefore, a video game in VR is more realistic than one played in a 3D condition. Hence, VR technology could be applied to complement 3D modelling, ensuring better communication both in an educational or vocational training (Bradshaw, 2016 ). A comparative study by Roettl and Terlutter ( 2018 ) on 237 players showed that the participation and cognitive load was much higher in players using VR than just 3D. Recently, researchers have critically debated on the effects of 3D and VR technologies on issues such as adverse effects like social isolation (Nicas, 2018 ), discomfort, eye fatigue, and headache when using these technologies for an extended period (Bradshaw, 2016 ; Roettl & Terlutter, 2018 ; Sharkawi, Ujang, & Abdul-Rahman, 2008 ).

Related EVRGs reviews

Since this article focuses on exploring current EVRGs, we consider it vital to summarize in a tabular form the existing efforts in this direction. Table  1 presents the previous attempts to review works in EVRGs.

As can be observed from the existing studies reviewing EVRGs (Table 1 ), the field of VR games has garnered interest amongst educational technology researchers. This may be partly as a result of an increase in innovation within the field as well as in the variation in the pedagogical application of VR. However, to the best of our knowledge and evaluation of the existing reviews, no study has attempted to review systematically the trends of EVRGs accounting from the viewpoints of technology, pedagogy, content, knowledge, and games. To bridge this gap, this paper centers in a systematic literature review to examine the current research on EVRGs and to provide important insights beyond the specific research findings within the individual studies.

Methodology

This study follows the guidelines for conducting a systematic literature review by Kitchenham and Charters ( 2007 ) (Fig.  1 ). The search service of the (blinded for review) library’s printed and electronic resources, (blinded for review) was utilized to access databases and extract publications. Google Drive was used for collaboration among the team, and MS Excel spreadsheets were used to manage and organize the information acquired from the search.

The systematic literature review process based on guidelines by Kitchenham and Charters ( 2007 )

Phase 1. Planning the review

This phase focuses on the initial preparation undertaken to achieve the goal of this literature review.

Phase 1.1 Rationale of the review

Based on the guidelines by Kitchenham and Charters ( 2007 ), we identified previous systematic reviews that addressed either our research questions or similar questions. However, as discussed in the introduction, none of the reviews focused on EVRGs. Thus, we decided to conduct a review on EVRGs with specific attention to attributes such as technology, pedagogy and gaming.

Phase 1.2. Specifying the research question

By drawing on existing accounts about the application of VR games, in the educational sphere, this study set one research question: What are the technological, pedagogical, and gaming characteristics of contemporary educational VR games? To answer this research question, this study analyzed existing research about EVRGs with an emphasis on profiling the games in terms of the country of research, year of production, technological attributes (e.g. platform, types of headsets), pedagogical attributes (e.g., topics, types of learners, educational settings) and the gaming attributes (e.g., player’s role, the theme of play, mode, and goal of the game).

Phase 1.3. Developing a review protocol

According to Kitchenham and Charters ( 2007 ), a review protocol provides the basis to carry out the systematic review. Creating a review protocol beforehand helps to reduce the likelihood of research bias, such as potential prejudiced selections of particular studies carried out by the researcher. Formal and informal searches were used to find relevant studies in response to the research question. Table  2 presents the databases and the search strategy of the preliminary searches of existing related studies of EVRGs in education, which set the direction for this study. The databases were selected because they were either specialized in educational technology, educational games or in virtual reality applications, or that have published at least one special issue in educational virtual reality and games for learning. Thereafter, the preliminary review studies presented in Table 1 were used to create the research framework as well as the research question, which yielded a well-organized review protocol.

Phase 2. Conducting the review

The second phase of the guidelines by Kitchenham and Charters ( 2007 ) follows five stages: the search strategy, the study selection criteria, the study quality assessment, the data extraction plan, and the data analysis tool.

Phase 2.1. Search strategy

The research question of this study guided the formulation and expounding of the search strategy. As a first step, the search keywords were identified as a way of narrowing down and focusing on relevant articles for the topic under study. The search keywords were chosen according to the research theme; research question and the objective of this study (see Table 2 for search strategy and list of databases). Search keywords: The search space was narrowed down using Boolean search phrases and different combinations of the following terms: “virtual reality” AND “education”, OR “learning”, OR “game”, OR “gamification”, OR “serious game”. While many researchers use the term “educational games” to refer to games, the purpose of which is helping a learner acquire a skill, others opt for a more generic term like “serious game”. The keyword choice was made in a way to capture any game that is used in an educational context, be it formal or informal, as long as it uses VR technology, with the definition we adopted above. The time frame for publication considered within the systematic review was between 2012 and 2018 . Since the field of educational technology and virtual reality games is developing very fast, articles before 2012 have been reviewed in previous studies and are not particularly relevant in this work. The screening was based on titles, abstracts, and full-text skimming and took place from 1 February 2019 to 30 May 2019.

Phase 2.2. Study selection criteria

Using the keywords and search strings presented in the section “ Phase 2.1. Search strategy ”, several articles were selected based on their relevance to the research question and inclusion criteria. A flow diagram representing the steps of the selection criteria is presented in Fig.  2 . The researchers read the title, abstract, keywords and skimmed through the contents of all the papers and selected the articles that appeared to be appropriate based on VR, education, and gamification. Abstracts, posters, books, and articles that did not show an implementation that required a VR headset were excluded. Altogether, we found 162 research papers through the predefined search keywords on the four databases. However, after we applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table  3 ), only 31 articles made it through the scrutiny (Table  4 ).

Flow Diagram of the Review Process (Adapted from Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009 )

Phase 2.3. Data extraction and analysis

We set up a coding scheme to guide the extraction of relevant data from research articles with relevance to our research question. The coding scheme included the following overarching dimensions: Title/name of the game, description of the game, country of game implementation, player role, theme, mode, gameplay, goal, platform, VR headset, game interaction, focus, learners, educational setting, research, and evaluation methods.

In summary, the methodology section, presented the planning and implementation process of the systematic review and these included; providing the rationale for choosing the framework adopted for the review, specifying the research questions, developing the review protocol, executing the review, identifying the keywords, drafting the study selection criteria as well as data extraction and analysis. Subsequently, the results yielded by these processes are presented in the next section.

The results are organized in four main categories: A general overview of the EVRGs, technological, pedagogical, and gaming characteristics.

Overview of the VR serious games

The number of EVRGs publications appearing in each year from 2012 to 2018 is presented in Fig.  3 . The bar chart shows a definite increase in the number of research works dedicated to VR educational games. Research shows that there was one study in 2014 and increases to 14 studies in 2018. Table  5 shows that EVRGs have been researched in North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. See Table 5 for full details of serious games.

The number of research publications dedicated to VR games per year

Technological characteristics

The review looked at the technological characteristics of the selected EVRGs in terms of platform, headset, and interaction components. As shown in Fig. 4 , the Oculus Rift seems to dominate the VR headsets used in EVRGs, as it was used in nearly half of the games (45.2%). HTC Vive came in second used in almost a quarter of the games (22.6%). Cardboard, which is the cheapest of the VR headsets, was only used in 9.7% of the games, while under a quarter (22.6%) of the papers we reviewed, did not specify which headsets were used as target technology.

Headsets breakdown in surveyed literature

The platforms used for the games were consistent with the headsets, given that HTC Vive and Oculus Rift DK2 are PC VR devices, 83.9% of the games were playable using a PC or MAC, while 12.9% were playable using a mobile device, which matches the Cardboard requirements (Fig.  5 ).

The distribution of the platforms in the literature within the SR

In Table  6 (technological characteristics), we show the interaction techniques and hardware used in the EVRGs. While the most basic headsets (e.g. Cardboard) provide basic VR interaction mechanisms like gaze and head movements, more advanced headsets come with more sophisticated controllers. These controllers allow the users to interact with the props in the game environment and facilitate movement. Some games provide natural user interfaces, while other task-specific games provide more advanced controllers such as steering wheels. However, it is noteworthy that traditional input devices, such as a mouse or keyboard are challenging to use with VR technology, as the latter conceals the user in a virtual environment, disallowing the visibility of the surrounding real environment. Some games have, however, suggested such input devices, which makes the gaming experience slightly inconvenient.

Pedagogical characteristics

The analysis of the games showed that more than two-thirds of the educational VR games were developed for informal learning context (Fig.  6 ). While the topics taught in the analyzed games were of great variety, we tried to group them under specific themes, to understand which of the tasks or learning goals were deemed VR-appropriate by the researchers. For instance, one-third of the games targeted teaching healthcare-related topics, while a quarter of the games aimed at introducing, training, or enforcing safety measures in various environments (e.g., construction sites, hospitals, or roads). Topics such as biology, physics or astronomy represent a tenth of the surveyed games (represented in Fig.  7 as natural sciences). While topics like language learning, geography, and civil engineering, received minimum interest with one VR game each.

Game settings

The topics taught using VR educational games

The target audience of the EVRGs depended on the desired learning outcomes. Additionally, the VR games were developed for all levels of formal education, from K-12 to tertiary education students, as well as for lifelong learners who need to acquire some skills to deal with specific health conditions, as illustrated in Table  7 .

Gaming characteristics of EVRGs

The 31 EVRGs reviewed in this paper differ significantly in the player roles suggested to their users but are mainly dependent on the educational purpose of the tool. Most of the games suggest player roles that are adequate for the tasks the user is being prepared for, in environments similar to those that they will be working on (see Table 8 for several aspects of gaming characteristics). This shows the power of VR in providing learners with a preview of working activities and conditions.

VR facilitates collaborative learning, where many learners can be together in the same virtual world to execute some learning tasks. Only five EVRGs incorporated such a feature in their designs, while 26 games decided to allow only single-player mode. Gameplay-wise, most games suggest the user moves through the virtual world and executes tasks similar to the real-world tasks they are being prepared for, and so games genres like puzzles are quasi-inexistent in the game set that we have reviewed. This study has found that the VR games present the content to be taught as a series of entertaining challenges to the learner in a virtual environment.

General overview

The study revealed that the number of articles or literature on emerging VR systems has been increasing since 2012, which indicates the interest VR has gained since its spread in late 2012. The study also revealed many educational topics in which VR has already been applied. A general emphasis was placed on healthcare education by VR researchers, along with a variety of other topics such as biology, computer science, astronomy, and fire training (Sárkány, 2016 ; Süncksen et al., 2018 ). VR has the potential to allow users to experience environments that are otherwise inaccessible in a very realistic way. It allows training in environments that would otherwise be hazardous for learners to train in, as is the case for fire training (Diez et al., 2016 ). It also allows learners to simulate training with expensive hardware on a risk-free yet realistic environment. Despite these affordances and the application of VR unraveled by this study, there appears to be a lack of research on the use of VR for language learning, failing to benefit from the technology in simulating social interactions, which are very efficient in helping learners to practice their language skills effectively.

Another key finding of this research is the absence of any VR educational games on the African continent. While North and South America, Europe, Asia and Australia participated in developing EVRGs. The cost of technology seems to affect African countries from benefiting from this promising technology. One solution is to rely on affordable headsets supported by Google Cardboard (Bouali et al., 2019 ). Still, such headsets suffer from the lack of appropriate interaction hardware that allows users to traverse and interact with the virtual world using only gaze and head movement. Such limitation causes Cardboard-related research to engineer games that require minimum interaction while preserving the targeted learning outcomes.

Technology and gaming

Despite Cardboard being the cheapest VR device, it is the least used technology in the surveyed literature, ranking even lower than the expensive HTC Vive. This raises some questions on the level of adoption of some educational games in real educational contexts, which is not the focus of our study. Nevertheless, the study shows that various games have adopted the use of the Oculus Rift VR, despite being more expensive than Cardboard headsets. Consequently, headsets are not the only problem in VR adoption. This study reveals that interaction is also an issue. In our analysis, we found that most of the games rely on gaze as an interaction mechanism, but this is hardly ever complemented with a natural user interface or interfaces, which facilitate interactions in VR worlds, resulting in the difficulty of using other input devices like keyboards.

Games that target teaching specific skills, such as diving or driving, require more advanced input devices, like Kinect to input body movement or a steering wheel to provide a life-like controller to a vehicle in the virtual world (Calvi et al., 2017 ; Likitweerawong & Palee, 2018 ). However, this incurs that such technology can only be afforded by a handful of users, presenting a stumbling block in the adoption of VR games in real-world contexts.

Regarding gaming, most of the gaming environments and contexts were dependent on the real-world context for which the learner is being prepared. This helps in the learning process of the user as it provides him/her with tailored environments that mimic the real world to a higher level of detail. The study also reveals that most of the games developed, allowed only for a single-player mode, failing to benefit from VR’s ability to connect learners in virtual worlds. The dominant game genre in the literature is Role Playing Game (RPG), which is adequate given that the learner impersonates the roles they are being trained for in the virtual world.

The concept of applying digital technology to build a virtual, physical/virtual or hybrid learning environment in which a student experiences a form of play, has emerged over the years and is now gaining acceptance. The puzzle here is that despite the wide variety of VR games developed for different fields (education, healthcare, business, climate, energy, industrial, and financial) only a handful of the games focused on education. Thus, begging the question of why EVRGs have not been widely adopted in mainstream education? Considering the interactive, immersive, and multi-sensory nature of VR, coupled with its growing popularity amongst researchers in psychology, aviation, and cognitive neuroscience, we had expected that even more EVRGs could have been developed and that the technology should have been widely adopted (Alexander et al., 2019 ). However, there are many reasons for the lack of adoption of EVRGs in mainstream education. One reason is that people tend not to consider VR as a mainstream technology. They perceived that the hype around the technology would lose popularity and be replaced by the reality of the time, in what was called the ‘trough of disillusion’ (Linden & Fenn, 2003 ). Additionally, there seems to be a lack of know-how by learning technologists and experts on how to design learning solutions with VR. Furthermore, the costs of implementing EVRG for large-scale adoption across educational curricula constitute a limiting factor for adoption in mainstream education (Alexander et al., 2019 ) and health-related issues.

Christou ( 2010 ) states that the three categories of formal and informal educational application areas of VR are used to improve core curriculum subjects such as the applications for edutainment, demonstrations, cultural heritage and museum experiences, as well as an application for training. Our analysis of the pedagogical contributions of EVRGs indicated a considerable variation among the subjects that were implemented. For example, the trend of EVRGs in this study showed that 32% of the applications were developed to support medical education. In contrast, only 3% was implemented to support subjects that involve the concretization of abstract concepts such as physics and geography.

Although the learners in these studies balanced well amongst children, youth and adult learners, there are obvious variations amongst the type of learners about the kind of EVRGs. For example, most learners could have medical conditions such as patients with neck or back pain, dementia, autism spectrum disorders, post-stroke conditions, brain lesions, and visual impairment. Translating clinical procedure into EVRGs to facilitate learning and future implementation of the procedure by caregivers and patients constitute the main interest in developing medical EVRGs (Heuven et al., 2017 ; Mihajlovic et al., 2018 ). Simulating the medical procedure offer motivation, engagement, and positive learning experience among EVRGs users (Trombetta et al., 2017 ). Having examined an essential pedagogical attribute, of the context of the learner in this study, we noticed that the learning context for most EVRGs falls within the informal settings. As several EVRGs are developed to provide particular training solutions to the user, the informality of the setting tends to overshadow the necessity of a classroom environment (formal setting).

Limitations of this study

The limitations of this study include:

The study focused on EVRGs in the educational domain without considering other uses in other facets within the gaming industry.

The study did not consider cross-cultural usage of the EVRGs, such as articles published in languages other than English.

Several studies have shown that the most critical value that VR adds to existing technology is the sense of immersivity in a virtual world built around the user. In education, it is theoretically crucial for learners to experience real-world scenarios from a first-person perspective compared to traditional two-dimensional (2D) screens which usually offer learners the chance to traverse the world from a third-person perspective, usually using an avatar. “Virtual Reality” as a concept, reveals some ambiguity as some of the research we surveyed referred to it as desktop VR, while others use the term to mean immersive VR. However, the inclusion criteria we developed focused on working on systems that immerse users into a virtual world rather than research that suggests a virtual world on a desktop screen.

Virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality are rapidly evolving phenomena in the educational landscape. Literature has shown the positive impacts that these adaptive and immersive technologies could have on students learning when applied in the gaming contexts. The essence of this study was to contribute new knowledge using analysis and synthesis of research articles that focused on the EVRGs in different contexts. The study explores the trends of EVRGs and relevant characteristic attributes that make effective learning such as technology, pedagogy and gaming. Besides, this study considers the learning content and the technology to be the critical aspects of the transactions that go with the teaching and learning process in terms of the pedagogy.

Moreover, the review focused on the application of VR as a gaming technology, with the learner fully immersed in the environment. In the final analysis, the review exposed a growing trend of research in EVRGs studies since 2012 to 2018, while also revealing the application of VR in the sciences, healthcare and technology education spheres having the most significant attention. The mainstream education and arts (such as languages) gained the least interest of educators using VR. This scenario offers the opportunity for further research in the educational contexts with emphasis on the arts and humanities disciplines. It is therefore pertinent that through this systematic review, technology-mediated learning will be enhanced when there is a clear understanding of the trends concerning its application in the different domains of learning.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Information and Communication Technology

Virtual Reality

Augmented Reality

Mixed Reality

Educational Virtual Reality Games

Role Playing Game

Two-Dimension

Three-Dimension

Personal Computer

Natural User Interface

Head Mounted Device

University of Eastern Finland

Microsoft Excel

Association for Computing Machinery

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Aggarwal, R., Black, S. A., Hance, J. R., Darzi, A., & Cheshire, N. J. W. (2006). Virtual reality simulation training can improve inexperienced surgeons’ endovascular skills. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery , 31 (6), 588–593.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alazba, A., Al-Khalifa, H., & AlSobayel, H. (2018). A proposed game for promoting physical activities among people with low back pain using virtual reality. In Proc. 11th PErvasive technologies related to assistive environments conference (PETRA '18) , (pp. 141–144). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3197768.3197780 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Muphy, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., & Mccormack, M. (2019). Educase horizon report . Louisville: EDUCAUSE, Higher Education Edition https://library.educause.edu/resources/2019/4/2019-horizon-report .

Google Scholar  

Alrehaili, E. A. (2018). A Virtual reality role-playing serious game for experiential learning . (Master thesis), University of Ottawa. https://doi.org/10.20381/ruor-22159 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Amal, A., Hend, A., & Hana, A. (2018). A proposed game for promoting physical activities among people with low back pain using virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 11th PErvasive technologies related to assistive environments conference (PETRA '18) . New York: ACM.

Bekele, M. K., Pierdicca, R., Frontoni, E., Malinverni, E. S., & Gain, J. (2018). A survey of augmented, virtual, and mixed reality for cultural heritage. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) , 11 (2), 7.

Bernardes, M., Barros, F., Simoes, M., & Castelo-Brancon, M. (2015). A serious game with virtual reality for travel training with autism Spectrum disorder. In International conference on virtual rehabilitation (ICVR) , (pp. 127–128). Valencia: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICVR.2015.7358609 .

Boboc, A. L., Orzan, G., Stoica, I., & Niculescu-Ciocan, C. (2018). Gamification and game-based learning– A solution for Romanian education system. The International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education. , 1 , 242–248.

Bouali, N., Nygren, E., Oyelere, S. S., Suhonen, J., & Cavalli-Sforza, V. (2019). A VR game to introduce OOP concepts. In 19th Koli calling international conference on computing education research (Koli calling ‘19) . New York: ACM.

Bradshaw, T. (2016). Virtual reality: four ways it could change your world. https://www.ft.com/content/0f7d7ecc-db47-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html .

Bryan, S. J., Campbell, A., & Mangina, E. (2018). An AR/VR Educational Game. In IEEE games, entertainment, media conference (GEM) , (pp. 1–9). Galway. https://doi.org/10.1109/GEM.2018.8516456 .

Byl, B., Süncksen, B. M., & Teistler, M. (2018). A serious virtual reality game to train spatial cognition for medical ultrasound imaging. In IEEE 6th international conference on serious games and applications for health (SeGAH) , (pp. 1–4). https://doi.org/10.1109/SeGAH.2018.8401365 .

Calvi, L., Santos, C. P., Relouw, J., Endrovski, B., Rothwell, C., Sarà, A., … Pantaleo, U. (2017). A VR game to teach underwater sustainability while diving. In Sustainable internet and ICT for sustainability (SustainIT’ 2017) , (pp. 1–4). https://doi.org/10.23919/SustainIT.2017.8379812 .

Carvalheiro, C., Nóbrega, R., da Silva, H., & Rodrigues, R. (2016). User redirection and direct haptics in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on multimedia , (vol. 5, pp. 1146–1155).

Chin, C. S., Kamsani, N. B., Zhong, X., Cui, R., & Yang, C. (2018). Unity3D serious game engine for high fidelity virtual reality training of remotely-Operated Vehicle Pilot. In Proc. 10th international conference on Modelling, identification and control (ICMIC), Guiyang , (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMIC.2018.8529900 .

Chittaro, L., & Buttussi, F. (2015). Assessing knowledge retention of an immersive serious game vs. a traditional education method in aviation safety. In IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 21(4), 529–538. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2391853 .

Chiu, F. (2017). Virtual reality for learning languages based on mobile devices. In 16th international conference on information technology based higher education and training (ITHET) , (pp. 1–3). https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET.2017.8067813 .

Christou, C. (2010). Virtual Reality in Education. In Affective, interactive and cognitive methods for e-learning design: creating an optimal education experience , (pp. 228–243).

Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2014). Visualizing cross sections: Training spatial thinking using interactive animations and virtual objects. Learning and Individual Differences. , 33 , 63–71.

Diez, H. V., Andoni, S. G., Aitor, M., & Oyarzun, D. (2016). Virtual training of fire wardens through immersive 3D environments. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Web3D technology (Web3D '16) , (pp. 43–50). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2945292.2945296 .

Dinis, F. M., Guimarães, A. S., Carvalho, B. R., & Martins, J. P. P. (2017). Development of virtual reality game-based interfaces for civil engineering education. In IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON) , (pp. 1195–1202). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2017.7943000 .

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism and the designing of learning Environments: Technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Computer and System Sciences , 105 , 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78069-1 .

Finkelstein, S., Nickel, A., Lipps, Z., Barnes, T., Wartell, Z., & Suma, E. A. (2011). Astrojumper: motivating exercise with an immersive virtual reality Exergame. Presence Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. , 20 (1), 78–92.

Greenwald, S. W., Kulik, A., Kunert, A., Beck, S., Fröhlich, B., & Cobb, S. (2017). Technology and Applications for Collaborative Learning in Virtual Reality. In Smith. Making a Difference: Prioritizing Equity and Access in CSCL. In 12th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) , (vol. 2).

Gyutae, H., Hojun, L., Sangho, L., Jaekwang, C., & Shiho, K. (2016). A VR serious game for fire evacuation drill with synchronized tele-collaboration among users. In 22nd ACM conference on virtual reality software and technology (VRST '16) , (pp. 301–302). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2993369.2996306 .

Hafsia, M., Monacelli, E., & Martin, H. (2018). Virtual reality simulator for construction workers. In Proc. virtual reality international conference - Laval virtual (VRIC '18) . https://doi.org/10.1145/3234253.3234298 .

Hentsch, C. (2018, February, 9). Virtual Reality in Education: How VR can be Beneficial to the Classroom. https://edtechtimes.com/2018/02/09 .

Heuven, R., Kinast, B., Thomas, A., Tabak, M., Cabrita, M., Schüler, T., & Hörst, D. (2017). Dinner is ready!: Virtual Reality Assisted Training for Chronic Pain Rehabilitation. In ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY) , (vol. 17, pp. 283–289). CHI PLAY’.

Hwang, G. J., Wu, P. H., Chen, C. C., & Tu, N. T. (2016). Effects of an augmented reality-based educational game on students’ learning achievements and attitudes in real-world observations. Interactive Learning Environments. , 24 (8), 1895–1906.

Kaliisa, R., Edward, P., & Julia, M. (2019). Mobile learning in higher education: A comparative analysis of developed and developing country contexts. British Journal of Educational Technology. , 50 (2), 546–561.

Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Engineering. , 45 (4), 1051.

Knote, A., Edenhofer, S., & Mammen, S. V. (2016). Neozoa: An immersive, interactive sandbox for the study of competing. In IEEE virtual reality workshop on K-12 Embodied Learning through Virtual & Augmented Reality (KELVAR) , (pp. 5–10). https://doi.org/10.1109/KELVAR.2016.7563675 .

Laine, T. H. (2018). Mobile educational augmented reality games: A systematic literature review and two case studies. Computers. , 7 (19), 11–15.

Lee, E. A. L., & Wong, K. W. (2008). A review of using virtual reality for learning. Transactions on Edutainment , 1 , 231–241.

Lee, E. A. L., & Wong, K. W. (2014). Learning with desktop virtual reality: Low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. Computers & Education. , 79 , 49–58.

Lee, E. A. L., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2010). How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education , 55 (4), 1424–1442 https// psycnet.apa.org >record.

Lele, A. (2013). Virtual reality and its military utility. Journal of Ambient Intelligent Human Computer. , 4 , 17–26.

Likitweerawong, K., & Palee, P. (2018). The virtual reality serious game for learning driving skills before taking practical test. In International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and technology (ICDAMT) , (pp. 158–161). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDAMT.2018.8376515 .

Linden, A., & Fenn, J. (2003). Understanding Gartner’s hype cycles. In Strategic Analysis Report Gartner, Inc. , (pp. 20–1971).

Liu, W., Cheok, A. D., Mei-Ling, C. L., & Theng, Y. L. (2007). Mixed reality classroom - learning from entertainment. ACM. , 1 (1), 65–72.

Lovreglio, R., Gonzalez, V., Feng, Z., & Sacks, R. (2018). Prototyping virtual reality serious games for building earthquake preparedness: The Auckland City Hospital case study. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 38, 670–682.

Mandal, S. (2013). Brief introduction of virtual reality & its challenges. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research. , 4 (4), 304.

Mihajlovic, Z., Popovic, S., & Brkic, K. (2018). A system for head – Neck rehabilitation exercises based on serious gaming virtual reality. Multimed Tools and Applications. , 77 (15), 19113–19137.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). The PRISMA Group (2009) preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PLoS Med. , 6 (7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 .

Moldoveanu, A. D. (2017). Virtual environments for training visually impaired for a sensory substitution device. In Zooming Innovation in Consumer Electronics International Conference (ZINC) , (pp. 26–29). https://doi.org/10.1109/ZINC.2017.7968654 .

Nicas, J. (2018). What does virtual reality do to your body and mind? Wall Str J. http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-does-virtual-reality-do-to-your-body-and-mind-1451858778 .

Oyelere, S. S., Suhonen, J., & Laine, T. H. (2017). Integrating Parson’s programming puzzles into a game-based mobile learning application. In Proc. Koli calling international conference on computing education research , (pp. 158–162).

Oyelere, S. S., Suhonen, J., Wajiga, G. M., & Sutinen, E. (2018). Design, development, and evaluation of a mobile learning application for computing education. Education and Information Technologies, Springer. , 23 (1), 467–495.

Pavlidis, G. P., & Markantonatou, S. (2018). Playful education and innovative gamified learning approaches. In Handbook of Research on Educational Design and Cloud Computing in Modern Classroom Settings , (pp. 321–341).

Pirker, J., Lesjak, I., & Guetl, C. (2017). Maroon VR: A Room-Scale Physics Laboratory Experience. In IEEE 17th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) , (pp. 482–484). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2017.92 .

Puttawong, N., Visoottiviseth, V., & Haga, J. (2017). VRFiWall virtual reality edutainment for firewall security concepts . In 2nd International Conference on Information Technology (INCIT) , (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1109/INCIT.2017.8257864 .

Roberto, A., Angela, C., Armando, F., Delfina, M., Donato, P., & Mirta, R. (2017). A framework to design, develop, and evaluate immersive and collaborative serious games in cultural heritage. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage , 11 (1). https://doi.org/10.1145/3064644 .

Roettl, J., & Terlutter, R. (2018). The same video game in 2D, 3D or virtual reality–how does technology impact game evaluation and brand placements. PLoS One , 13 (7), e0200724.

Sampaio, A. Z., Ferreira, M. M., Rosário, D. P., & Martins, O. P. (2010). 3D and VR models in civil engineering education: Construction, rehabilitation and maintenance. Automation in Construction. , 19 (7), 819–828.

Sárkány, A. (2016). Maintain and improve mental health by smart virtual reality serious games. In Pervasive computing paradigms for mental health , (vol. 604). Cham: MindCare. Communications in Computer and Information Science, Springer.

Shahab, M. (2017). Social virtual reality robot (V2R): A novel concept for education and rehabilitation of children with autism. In 5th RSI International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (ICRoM) , (pp. 82–87). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRoM.2017.8466148 .

Sharkawi, K. H., Ujang, M. U., & Abdul-Rahman, A. (2008). 3D navigation system for virtual reality based on 3D game engine. In The international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, 37(PART B4) .

Shin, D. H. (2017). The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning. Telematics & Informatics. , 34 (8), 1826–1836.

Snowdon, C. M., & Oikonomou, A. (2018). Analysing the educational benefits of 3D virtual learning environments. In European conference on e-learning (513-XVIII) . Kidmore End: Academic Conferences International Limited.

Süncksen, M., Bendig, H., Teistler, M., Wagner, M., Bott, O. J., & Dresing, K. (2018). Gamification and virtual reality for teaching mobile x-ray imaging. In IEEE 6th international conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH) , (vol. 7). https://doi.org/10.1109/SeGAH.2018.8401364 .

Szczurowski, K., & Smith, M. (2018). “Woodlands” - a virtual reality serious game supporting learning of practical road safety skills. In IEEE Games, Entertainment, Media conference (GEM) , (pp. 1–9). https://doi.org/10.1109/GEM.2018.8516493 .

Tabak, M., Miriam, C., Thomas, S., David, H., René, H., & Benjamin, K. (2017). " Dinner is ready!": Virtual Reality Assisted Training for Chronic Pain Rehabilitation. In In extended abstracts publication of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play (CHI PLAY '17 extended abstracts) , (pp. 283–289). ACM.

Triberti, S., Villani, D., & Riva, G. (2016). Unconscious goal pursuit primes attitudes towards technology usage: A virtual reality experiment. Computers in Human Behavior. , 64 , 163–172.

Trombetta, M., Henrique, P. P. B., Brum, M. R., Colussi, E. L., Marchi, A. C. B., & Rieder, R. (2017). Motion rehab AVE 3D: A VR-based exergame for post-stroke rehabilitation. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. , 151 , 15–20.

Tsoy, D., Sneath, P., Rempel, J., Huang, S., Bodnariuc, N., & Mercuri, M. (2019). Creating GridlockED: A serious game for teaching about multipatient environments. Academic Medicine. , 94 (1), 66–70.

Tussyadiah, L. P., Wang, D., Jung, T. H., & Dieck, M. C. (2018). Virtual reality, presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism. Tourism Management. , 66 , 140–154.

Vesisenaho, M., Juntunen, M., Häkkinen, P., Pöysä-Tarhonen, J., Fagerlund, J., & Miakush, I. (2019). Virtual reality in education: Focus on the role of emotions and physiological reactivity. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research. , 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.4101/jvwr.v12i1.7329. .

Virvou, M., & Katsionis, G. (2008). On the usability and likeability of virtual reality games for education: The case of VR-ENGAGE. Computers & Education , 50 (1):154–178.

Visoottiviseth, V., Phungphat, A., Puttawong, N., Chantaraumporn, P., & Haga, J. (2018). Lord of Secure: the Virtual Reality Game for Educating Network Security. In Seventh ICT International Student Project Conference (ICT-ISPC) , (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICT-ISPC.2018.8523947 .

Voinea, G. D., Girbacia, F., Postelnicu, C. C., & Marto, A. (2018). Exploring Cultural Heritage Using Augmented Reality Through Google’s Project Tango and ARCore. In International conference on VR Technologies in Cultural Heritage , (pp. 93–106).

Vourvopoulos, A., Faria, A. L., Ponnam, K., & Badia, S. B. (2014). RehabCity: design and validation of a cognitive assessment and rehabilitation tool through gamified simulations of activities of daily living. In Proc. 11th conference on advances in computer entertainment technology (ACE '14), Funchal, Portugal . https://doi.org/10.1145/2663806.2663852 .

Xenos, M., Maratou, V., Ntokas, I., Mettouris, C., & Papadopoulos, G. A. (2017). Game-based learning using a 3D virtual world in computer engineering education. In IEEE global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) .

Zielke, M. A. (2017). Developing Virtual Patients with VR/AR for a natural user interface in medical teaching. In IEEE 5th international conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH) , (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.1109/SeGAH.2017.7939285 .

Zikky, M., Fathoni, K., & Firdaus, M. (2018). Interactive distance media learning collaborative based on virtual reality with solar system subject. In 19th IEEE/ACIS international conference on software engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD) , (pp. 4–9). https://doi.org/10.1109/SNPD.2018.8441031 .

Zyda, M. (2005). From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. IEEE Computer Society. 37 (9), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2005.297 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Author information, authors and affiliations.

University of Eastern Finland, School of Computing, Joensuu, Finland

Solomon Sunday Oyelere & Nacir Bouali

Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, Enschede, NB, 7522, The Netherlands

Nacir Bouali

Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Rogers Kaliisa

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

George Obaido

Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, Nigeria

Abdullahi Abubakar Yunusa

Crown Hill University, Eiyekorin, Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria

Ebunayo R. Jimoh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The first author made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work. The author was involved in the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of Google scholar data for the work. The author was involved in the drafting the methodology, discussion and conclusion part of the work and revising it critically for important intellectual content. The author was responsible for making final approval of the manuscript to be submitted for review. The second author made substantial contributions to the design of the literature review process. The author was involved in the acquisition of data from IEEE database, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work. The author was involved in the drafting of the result and discussion section of the work and revising it critically for important intellectual content. The third author made substantial contributions and participated in data searching in ScienceDirect database, collection and analysis, writing and reviewing the article. The author was involved in the drafting of some aspect of the literature review section of the work and revising it critically for important intellectual content. The fourth author made substantial contributions to the design of the literature review process. The author was involved in the acquisition of data from Google scholar database, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work. The author was involved in the drafting of the result and discussion section of the work, proofreading, and revising it critically for important intellectual content. The fifth author made substantial contributions and reviewed articles related to ACM database within the scope of the systematic review. The author was involved in drafting some aspects of the literature review section. The author was also responsible for analysis, and interpretation of data for the work and edited some portions of the manuscript and drafted the conclusion as well as the abstract. The sixth author made substantial contributions and participated in data searching in IEEE database, collection and analysis, and reviewing the article. The author was involved in the drafting of some aspects of the literature review section of the work and revising it critically for important intellectual content. General note: It is important to mention here that the manuscript went through circles of reading, proofreading and editing by all the authors. The authors' read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Solomon Sunday Oyelere .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

No competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Oyelere, S.S., Bouali, N., Kaliisa, R. et al. Exploring the trends of educational virtual reality games: a systematic review of empirical studies. Smart Learn. Environ. 7 , 31 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00142-7

Download citation

Received : 29 July 2020

Accepted : 06 October 2020

Published : 19 October 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00142-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Educational games
• Virtual reality
• Educational virtual reality games
• Systematic review

Advertisement

Educational games and students’ game engagement in elementary school classrooms

• Published: 25 October 2017
• Volume 4 , pages 395–418, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• Sunha Kim 1 ,
• Mido Chang 2 ,
• Kirby Deater-Deckard 3 ,
• Michael A. Evans 4 ,
• Anderson Norton 5 &
• Yavuz Samur 6  

2172 Accesses

15 Citations

8 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The main goal of this paper was to examine middle school students’ game engagement and its effect on math performance. For the game, we developed [Math App], an educational video game intended to support students’ understanding of fractions. Using [Math App] in a quasi-experimental research setting, we collected data on game engagement, game features, the perception of game learning ability, gender, and the amount of gameplay, and math performance. Our structural equation modeling analysis revealed that game engagement was categorized into two subdomains of behavioral and emotional/cognitive engagement. We also found that students’ game engagements were associated with student’s perception of gaming ability and in turn, it displayed a significant path with game features.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Motivation Outcomes in Math-Related Videogames

Daniel L. Hoffman, Seungoh Paek, … Selen Türkay

Integration in the Curriculum as a Factor in Math-Game Effectiveness

Evaluating game-based learning environments for enhancing motivation in mathematics.

Ainley, M. D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (3), 395–405.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, C., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., et al. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136 (2), 151–173.

Atkinson, T., & Hirumi, A. (2010). The game brain. In A. Hirumi (Ed.), Playing games in school (pp. 57–73). Washington, DC: International Society for Technology Education (ISTE).

Google Scholar  

Bangert-Drowns, R., & Pyke, C. (2002). Teacher ratings of student engagement with educational software: An exploratory study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50 (2), 23–37.

Barkatsasa, A. T., Kasimatisb, K., & Gialamas, V. (2009). Learning secondary mathematics with technology: Exploring the complex interrelationship between students’ attitudes, engagement, gender and achievement. Computers & Education, 52 (3), 562–570.

Bowman, R. F. (1982). A Pac-Man theory of motivation: Tactical implications for classroom instruction. Educational Technology, 22 (9), 14–17.

Bressler, D. M., & Bodzin, A. M. (2013). A mixed methods assessment of students’ flow experiences during a mobile augmented reality science game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29 (6), 505–517.

Brockmyer, J. H., Fox, C. M., Curtiss, K. A., McBroom, E., Burkhart, K. M., & Pidruzny, J. N. (2009). The development of the game engagement questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (4), 624–634.

Burgers, C., Eden, A., van Engelenburg, M. D., & Buningh, S. (2015). How feedback boosts motivation and play in a brain-training game. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 94–103.

Chou, T.-J., & Ting, C.-C. (2003). The role of flow experience in cyber-game addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6 (6), 663–675.

Chu, Y. Y. S. L., Duh, H. B., & Quek, F. (2010). Investigating narrative in mobile games for seniors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 669–672). ACM.

Clarke, D., & Roche, A. (2010). The power of a single game to address a range of important ideas in fraction learning. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15 (3), 18–24.

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86 (1), 79–122.

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self-processes and development: Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43–77). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Toward a psychology of optimal experience. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 209–226). Netherlands: Springer.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319–340.

Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.

Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.

Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221–234.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.

Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4.

Fu, F., Su, R., & Yu, S. (2009). EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners’ enjoyment of e-learning games. Computers & Education, 52 (2009), 101–112.

Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33 (4), 441–467.

Gentile, D. A. (2011). The multiple dimensions of video game effects. Child Development Perspectives, 5 (2), 75–81.

Grüsser, S. M., Thalemann, R., & Griffiths, M. D. (2006). Excessive computer game playing: Evidence for addiction and aggression? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10 (2), 290–292.

Ha, I., Yoon, Y., & Choi, M. (2007). Determinants of adoption of mobile games under mobile broadband wireless access environment. Information & Management, 44 (3), 276–286.

Hackenberg, A. J., & Lee, M. Y. (2015). Relationships between students’ fractional knowledge and equation writing. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46 (2), 196–243.

Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS - SEM) . Sage.

Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion . Naval Air Warfare Center Training System Division (No. 2005-004). Retrieved November 8, 2010 from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA441935&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf .

Hays, R. T. (2010). Making games more effective in the classroom. In A. Hirumi (Ed.), Playing games in school: Video games and simulations for primary and secondary education (pp. 241–268). Washington, DC: International Society for Technology Education (ISTE).

Hoffman, B., & Nadelson, L. (2010). Motivational engagement and video gaming: A mixed methods study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58 (3), 245–270.

Howard-Jones, P. A., & Demetriou, S. (2009). Uncertainty and engagement with learning games. Instructional Science, 37 (6), 519–536.

Hsu, C.-L., & Lu, H.-P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management, 41 (7), 853–868.

Hull, D. C., Williams, G. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Video game characteristics, happiness and flow as predictors of addiction among video game players: A pilot study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2 (3), 145–152.

Kebritchi, M., & Hirumi, A. (2008). Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational computer games. Computers & Education, 51 (4), 1729–1743.

Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games on mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers & Education, 55 (2), 427–443.

Kim, P. W., Kim, S. Y., Shim, M., Im, C.-H., & Shon, Y.-M. (2012). The influence of an educational course on language expression and treatment of gaming addiction for massive multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) players. Computers & Education, 63 (2013), 208–217.

Kim, E. J., Namkoong, K., Ku, T., & Kim, S. J. (2008). The relationship between online game addiction and aggression, self-control and narcissistic personality traits. European Psychiatry, 23 (3), 212–218.

Kneer, J., & Glock, S. (2013). Escaping in digital games: The relationship between playing motives and addictive tendencies in males. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (4), 1415–1420.

Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students’ situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8 (2), 139–162.

Law, E., Gamble, T., Schwarz, D., Kickmeier-Rust, M., & Holzinger, A. (2009). A mixed-method approach on digital educational games for K12: Gender, attitudes and performance. HCI and Usability for e - Inclusion , 42–54.

Lee, L. C., & Hao, K. C. (2015). Designing and evaluating digital game-based learning with the ARCS motivation model, humor, and animation. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), 11 (2), 80–95.

Lemmens, J. S., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009). Development and validation of a game addiction scale for adolescents. Media Psychology, 12 (1), 77–95.

Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment: Engaging students in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37 (2), 211–231.

Lowrie, T., & Jorgensen, R. (2011). Gender differences in students’ mathematics game playing. Computers & Education, 57 (4), 2244–2248.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1 (2), 130–149.

Malone, T. (1981). Towards a theory of instrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 4, 333–369.

Mandinach, E. B., & Corno, L. (1985). Cognitive engagement variations among students of different ability level and sex in a computer problem solving game. Sex Roles, 13 (3), 241–251.

Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413–440.

Martin, A. J., Ginns, P., & Papworth, B. (2017). Motivation and engagement: Same or different? Does it matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 55, 150–162.

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel . US Department of Education.

Negini, F., Mandryk, R. L., & Stanley, K. G. (2014). Using affective state to adapt characters, NPCs, and the environment in a first-person shooter game. In Games Media Entertainment (GEM), 2014 IEEE (pp. 1–8). IEEE.

Olive, J., & Vomvoridi, E. (2006). Making sense of instruction on fractions when a student lacks necessary fractional schemes: The case of Tim. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25 (1), 18–45.

Pagnano-Richardson, K., & Henninger, M. L. (2008). A model for developing and assessing tactical decision-making competency in game play. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 79 (3), 24–29.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.

Posner, M. I. (1978). Chronometric explorations of mind . Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.

Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Research on attention networks as a model for the integration of psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 1–23.

Prensky, M. (2008). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (6), 1004–1019.

Prensky, M. (2010). Educating the millennial generation. In A. Hirumi (Ed.), Playing games in school (pp. 7–32). Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).

Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement . New York: Springer.

Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M 2 : media in the lives of 8 - to 18 - year - olds. The Kaiser Family Foundation.

Rieger, D., Wulf, T., Kneer, J., Frischlich, L., & Bente, G. (2014). The winner takes it all: The effect of in-game success and need satisfaction on mood repair and enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 281–286.

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3.0, SmartPLS GmbH: Boenningstedt.

Roscoe, R. D., Snow, E. L., Brandon, R. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Educational game enjoyment, perceptions, and features in an intelligent writing tutor. In FLAIRS Conference .

Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16 (4), 465–479.

Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2004). Attentional control and self-regulation. Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications, 2, 284–299.

Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30 (4), 344–360.

Schumaker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sherry, J. L. (2001). The effects of violent video games on aggression. Human Communication Research, 27 (3), 409–431.

Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (2009). Engagement as an organizational construct in the dynamics of motivational development. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfi eld (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 223–245). Malwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Smith, T. D., & McMillan, B. F. (2001). A Primer of model fit indices in structural equation modeling.

Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 3 (3), 3.

Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2009). Students’ anticipated situational engagement: The roles of teacher behavior, personal engagement, and gender. The Journal of genetic psychology, 170 (3), 268–286.

Vandewater, E., Shim, M.-S., & Caplovitz, A. G. (2004). Linking obesity and activity level with children’s television and video game use. Journal of Adolescence, 27 (1), 71–85.

Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identifi cation with school. American Journal of Education, 105, 204–319.

Wilson, K. A., Bedwell, W. L., Lazzara, E. H., Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Estock, J. L., et al. (2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes: Review and research proposals. Simulation and Gaming, 40 (2), 217–266.

Yang, D. C., Reys, R. E., & Wu, L. L. (2010). Comparing the development of fractions in the fifth-and sixth-graders’ textbooks of Singapore, Taiwan, and the USA. School Science and Mathematics, 110 (3), 118–127.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This manuscript is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. DRL-1118571. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. Mido Chang was a co-principal investigator of the funded project by the NSF. Sunha Kim was the recipient of graduate assistantship of the project and later served on the grant as a consultant.

The authors of Mido Chang, Michael A. Evans, Kirby Deater-Deckard, and Anderson Norton were the principal and co-principal investigators of the funded project by the NSF.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Counseling, School, & Educational Psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo, 423 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY, 14260-1000, USA

Department of Leadership & Professional Studies, College of Education, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

Department of Psychology & Department of Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA

Kirby Deater-Deckard

Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Counselor Education, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

Michael A. Evans

Department of Mathematics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

Anderson Norton

Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey

Yavuz Samur

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunha Kim .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

The research has been conducted by collecting data from 5th and 8th grade students after the research team obtained the necessary approvals of Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (FWA00000572) and Florida International University Institutional Review Board (IRB-13-0219), the consent form from parents, and the assent form from students.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kim, S., Chang, M., Deater-Deckard, K. et al. Educational games and students’ game engagement in elementary school classrooms. J. Comput. Educ. 4 , 395–418 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-017-0095-4

Download citation

Received : 25 February 2017

Revised : 08 September 2017

Accepted : 05 October 2017

Published : 25 October 2017

Issue Date : December 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-017-0095-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Game engagement
• Game features
• Perceived competence in games
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Partisan divides over K-12 education in 8 charts

K-12 education is shaping up to be a key issue in the 2024 election cycle. Several prominent Republican leaders, including GOP presidential candidates, have sought to limit discussion of gender identity and race in schools , while the Biden administration has called for expanded protections for transgender students . The coronavirus pandemic also brought out partisan divides on many issues related to K-12 schools .

Today, the public is sharply divided along partisan lines on topics ranging from what should be taught in schools to how much influence parents should have over the curriculum. Here are eight charts that highlight partisan differences over K-12 education, based on recent surveys by Pew Research Center and external data.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to provide a snapshot of partisan divides in K-12 education in the run-up to the 2024 election. The analysis is based on data from various Center surveys and analyses conducted from 2021 to 2023, as well as survey data from Education Next, a research journal about education policy. Links to the methodology and questions for each survey or analysis can be found in the text of this analysis.

Most Democrats say K-12 schools are having a positive effect on the country , but a majority of Republicans say schools are having a negative effect, according to a Pew Research Center survey from October 2022. About seven-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (72%) said K-12 public schools were having a positive effect on the way things were going in the United States. About six-in-ten Republicans and GOP leaners (61%) said K-12 schools were having a negative effect.

About six-in-ten Democrats (62%) have a favorable opinion of the U.S. Department of Education , while a similar share of Republicans (65%) see it negatively, according to a March 2023 survey by the Center. Democrats and Republicans were more divided over the Department of Education than most of the other 15 federal departments and agencies the Center asked about.

In May 2023, after the survey was conducted, Republican lawmakers scrutinized the Department of Education’s priorities during a House Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing. The lawmakers pressed U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona on topics including transgender students’ participation in sports and how race-related concepts are taught in schools, while Democratic lawmakers focused on school shootings.

Partisan opinions of K-12 principals have become more divided. In a December 2021 Center survey, about three-quarters of Democrats (76%) expressed a great deal or fair amount of confidence in K-12 principals to act in the best interests of the public. A much smaller share of Republicans (52%) said the same. And nearly half of Republicans (47%) had not too much or no confidence at all in principals, compared with about a quarter of Democrats (24%).

This divide grew between April 2020 and December 2021. While confidence in K-12 principals declined significantly among people in both parties during that span, it fell by 27 percentage points among Republicans, compared with an 11-point decline among Democrats.

Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say teachers’ unions are having a positive effect on schools. In a May 2022 survey by Education Next , 60% of Democrats said this, compared with 22% of Republicans. Meanwhile, 53% of Republicans and 17% of Democrats said that teachers’ unions were having a negative effect on schools. (In this survey, too, Democrats and Republicans include independents who lean toward each party.)

The 38-point difference between Democrats and Republicans on this question was the widest since Education Next first asked it in 2013. However, the gap has exceeded 30 points in four of the last five years for which data is available.

Republican and Democratic parents differ over how much influence they think governments, school boards and others should have on what K-12 schools teach. About half of Republican parents of K-12 students (52%) said in a fall 2022 Center survey that the federal government has too much influence on what their local public schools are teaching, compared with two-in-ten Democratic parents. Republican K-12 parents were also significantly more likely than their Democratic counterparts to say their state government (41% vs. 28%) and their local school board (30% vs. 17%) have too much influence.

On the other hand, more than four-in-ten Republican parents (44%) said parents themselves don’t have enough influence on what their local K-12 schools teach, compared with roughly a quarter of Democratic parents (23%). A larger share of Democratic parents – about a third (35%) – said teachers don’t have enough influence on what their local schools teach, compared with a quarter of Republican parents who held this view.

Republican and Democratic parents don’t agree on what their children should learn in school about certain topics. Take slavery, for example: While about nine-in-ten parents of K-12 students overall agreed in the fall 2022 survey that their children should learn about it in school, they differed by party over the specifics. About two-thirds of Republican K-12 parents said they would prefer that their children learn that slavery is part of American history but does not affect the position of Black people in American society today. On the other hand, 70% of Democratic parents said they would prefer for their children to learn that the legacy of slavery still affects the position of Black people in American society today.

Parents are also divided along partisan lines on the topics of gender identity, sex education and America’s position relative to other countries. Notably, 46% of Republican K-12 parents said their children should not learn about gender identity at all in school, compared with 28% of Democratic parents. Those shares were much larger than the shares of Republican and Democratic parents who said that their children should not learn about the other two topics in school.

Many Republican parents see a place for religion in public schools , whereas a majority of Democratic parents do not. About six-in-ten Republican parents of K-12 students (59%) said in the same survey that public school teachers should be allowed to lead students in Christian prayers, including 29% who said this should be the case even if prayers from other religions are not offered. In contrast, 63% of Democratic parents said that public school teachers should not be allowed to lead students in any type of prayers.

In June 2022, before the Center conducted the survey, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a football coach at a public high school who had prayed with players at midfield after games. More recently, Texas lawmakers introduced several bills in the 2023 legislative session that would expand the role of religion in K-12 public schools in the state. Those proposals included a bill that would require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom, a bill that would allow schools to replace guidance counselors with chaplains, and a bill that would allow districts to mandate time during the school day for staff and students to pray and study religious materials.

Mentions of diversity, social-emotional learning and related topics in school mission statements are more common in Democratic areas than in Republican areas. K-12 mission statements from public schools in areas where the majority of residents voted Democratic in the 2020 general election are at least twice as likely as those in Republican-voting areas to include the words “diversity,” “equity” or “inclusion,” according to an April 2023 Pew Research Center analysis .

Also, about a third of mission statements in Democratic-voting areas (34%) use the word “social,” compared with a quarter of those in Republican-voting areas, and a similar gap exists for the word “emotional.” Like diversity, equity and inclusion, social-emotional learning is a contentious issue between Democrats and Republicans, even though most K-12 parents think it’s important for their children’s schools to teach these skills . Supporters argue that social-emotional learning helps address mental health needs and student well-being, but some critics consider it emotional manipulation and want it banned.

In contrast, there are broad similarities in school mission statements outside of these hot-button topics. Similar shares of mission statements in Democratic and Republican areas mention students’ future readiness, parent and community involvement, and providing a safe and healthy educational environment for students.

• Education & Politics
• Partisanship & Issues
• Politics & Policy

About 1 in 4 U.S. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year

About half of americans say public k-12 education is going in the wrong direction, what public k-12 teachers want americans to know about teaching, what’s it like to be a teacher in america today, race and lgbtq issues in k-12 schools, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy