# data[].attributes.body
My name is Gaëlle Dagorn.
I'm a brand new student in the university of Rennes1 in biology, international section. I'm in group 2 ans my teacher is Miss. Bathia.
This year, I want to improve my listening and understanding skills, ut I also want to enlarge my vocabulary.
Here is my first work : keep this logbook fed with informations and opinions about serious games.

# data[].attributes.body
During the past few days, I've been creating my personal Kahoot game. Indeend, in order to enlarge my vocabulary baggage, I've decided to elaborate a translation quizz. It was not as simple as I thought it woukd be, but it was quite fun to search for intresting words to learn about.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn – any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.body
Apparently, a learning game is often created by grown ups in order to be used for teaching and learning. It is designed for an educational purpose.
It can teach some specific subjects like maths, English, Geography,... or skills such as memory, logic, rigor, understanding skills,... .

https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/designing-engaging-educational-games-and-assessing-engagement-in-game-based-learning/9123

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is a learning game?

Other than using a game for learning... what makes a learning game?

This article will answer what leaning games are. In addition, common problems and challenges with learning games will be reviewed. Key characteristics of learning games will be provided as well as attributes that make good learning games. The article closes with how to design learning games as well as provides an argument on using games for learning.
What makes a learning game?
Games adhere to the constructivist theory of learning due to this structure of engagement. Constructivism in learning involves individuals creating knowledge through their action and interaction. This knowledge creation is different from other methods of teaching and learning that rely on declarative or factual knowledge. Information is exchanged and shared though those methods but is not necessarily created.

The difference between the two is this: declarative knowledge is about knowing all the letters of the alphabet. Constructed knowledge is about knowing how to arrange those letters to write a persuasive speech. You can gain the former through rote memorization. You can earn the latter through study, practice, and experimentation. Three areas were learning games excel.

That means that learning games are games that are designed to be used for or with educational goals. They are still games and posses their formal elements; but learning games go one step further and support the process of teaching and learning through game play.

Some of the most powerful tools that learning games have to offer are already what makes successful commercial games. They involve a feedback structure; goals and paths to success; and a framework for learned competency. Games don't require that players be successful. Rather they provide the framework through self-determination theory in order for players to create their own success through playing the game.

This is nowhere more evident in some of the oldest learning games available: simulations. Simulations are experiences that are meant to accurately re-recreate a simulation or scenario. Simulations become powerful tools for learning and development when paired with a focus on using the game for learning. Simulations involve high tech versions used to train commercial pilots to low tech versions like live role-playing. Simulations can emulate all different types of scenarios that involve war games; climate change; stock market trading; and political deal making like a Model United Nations.

Sometimes the only thing that separates a game from a learning game is how an instructor uses the medium as an approach to teaching and learning. Because of that, any game (with enough connection and effort) can be adapted to become a learning game.
Problems with learning games
This doesn't mean there are problems with learning games or at least the term learning game. Learning games are often criticized because they lack the same kind of addictive engagement of commercially available games. If this is the case then the game's success has less to do with the learning game and more to do with the formal design of the game.

Often these aren't addressed because designers, educators, and the playing public don't see learning games possessing broad appeal. Instead, they see learning games addressing a niche market. That means it isn't worth the effort to invest and develop these games.

This is a short sighted analysis. This is because learning games that fail to engage their players or that fail to deliver educational results do so because they lose sight of two important goals for learning games. Those goals are engaging the player, SO that they have fun while learning.
Key characteristics
There are some key characteristics that make learning games effective as both games and instructional tools. Those include addressing challenges, including curiosity, providing for player control, and adhering to the "magic circle."

The formal game element for conflict is key to having an objective in a learning game. Learning games are about presenting the player with options for which to address and overcome a challenge or objective. That means that successful games - and by extension learning games - must also include objectives for players.

Learning games must also pique the player's curiosity. This speaks to Bartle's player taxonomy on "explorers" as addressing and serving players' curiosity in a learning game is paramount. Being able to address players' sensory and cognitive curiosity is important for learning game success. That means that players in a learning game must be served with interesting interactions within the game. Players must also receive opportunities for exploring how their knowledge can grow and expand with the game.

Agency, is a key part of self-determination theory and is another important element for successful games. Learning games must include a sense of player agency and control in the environment so that the learner feels that they can influence or have an impact in the game. This is the basic level of meaningful choices in games that gives players a sense of competency that they can succeed (and learn) through game play.

Of course you can include all of these different characteristics of successful learning games and still not create a GOOD learning game.
What makes a good learning game?
A good learning game will rely on integration. Integration is an innate connection between the core loop; formal structures; and meaningful choices in the game with the learning outcomes it seeks to address. That means that good learning games are enjoyable games; but they go one step further. Good learning games integrate learning as part of an enjoyable experience. Players must master the game in order to master the learning outcomes.
How to design learning games
When thinking about your learning game design include the connection between the formal game elements and your learning outcomes. Include intrinsic motivation as the main desire to drive player behavior. Then focus the game on the key outcomes you hope to achieve.

You can start to address all three areas though a game's rule set. These rules define what players can do; what players cannot do; and what players should do in order to "win" or resolve the game. These rules represent the core experience and core loop of game play.

However, rules alone do not make a game. There must be some kind of motivating factor that sparks students' interests in playing the game. Meaning must be attached to the reason that players begin playing the game. Meaning must always be attached to why players return to keep playing it.

Lastly, remember that learning games are created to take advantage of the motivation and engagement that attracts players to games. A game un-played is an ineffective game. A learning game that doesn't engage learners is similarly unsuccessful. Reasons for players to continue to play is paramount in ensuring that the learning game is a success.
Why use games for learning?
The role that education plays in peoples' lives is changing. With that change comes the way that people learn. One of those ways can be through games. Not necessarily through the use of commercially available games, but through skillfully crafted learning games that includes educational content that is consumed as well as enjoyed.

However, this fun engagement doesn't come without a skillful connection between in-game tasks and the ultimate learning outcome for players. These should be connected in all ways via mechanics, interfaces, and story. Doing so ensures that the learning game meets the educational outcomes of the designers as well as provides a fun experience for learners.
Takeaways
This article defined learning games. In addition, the article covered common problems and challenges with learning games. Key characteristics and attributes of learning games were provided. The article closed on how to design learning games as well as provided an argument for why games should be used for education.

This article was about games-based learning. To learn more about gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.
Dave Eng, EdD
Managing Partner
dave@universityxp.com www.universityxp.com References
Egenfeldt-Nielsen , S. (2011, February). What Makes a Good Learning Game? Going beyond edutainment. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from https://elearnmag.acm.org/.cfm?aid=1943210

Eng, D. (2016, June 17). Experiential Learning: GAME ON! Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2016/6/17/experiential-learning-game-on

Eng, D. (2016, September 9). Student Player Type: Socialize, Achieve, Explore. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2017/9/9/student-player-type-socialize-achieve-explore

Eng, D. (2019, April 30). Gamified Learning Outcomes. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/4/30/gamified-learning-outcomes

Eng, D. (2019, April 5). The Nature of Games. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/4/5/the-nature-of-games

Eng, D. (2019, August 13). Narratives, Toys, Puzzles, Games. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/8/13/narratives-toys-puzzles-games

Eng, D. (2019, August 6). Meaningful Choices. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/8/6/meaningful-choices

Eng, D. (2019, December 3). Core Loops. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/3/core-loops

Eng, D. (2019, June 25). Simulations vs Games. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/6/25/simulations-vs-games

Eng, D. (2019, June 4). Formal Game Structures. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/6/04/formal-game-structures

Eng, D. (2019, May 7). Serious Games. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/5/7/what-are-serious-games

Eng, D. (2019, October 29). Gaming with Motivation. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/10/29/gaming-with-motivation

Eng, D. (2020, February 13). Engagement Curves. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/2/13/engagement-curves

Eng, D. (2020, February 6). Game Mechanics. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/2/6/game-mechanics

Eng, D. (2020, March 26). What is Games-Based Learning? Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/3/26/what-is-games-based-learning

Ferriman, J. (2016, September 26). 6 Game Types for Learning. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from https://www.learndash.com/6-game-types-for-learning/

Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: obstacles, opportunities and openness. The education arcade. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.687.5017&rep=rep1&type=pdf

McNulty, R., Shulman, B. M., & Jorgensen, M. (n.d.). Playing (And Learning) to Win. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from http://www.wesurveys.org/spn/userMedia/63/72763/files/STRIDE_Academy_White_Paper.pdf

Schaller, D. T. (2005, June). What Makes a Learning Game? Retrieved March 30, 2020, from https://www.eduweb.com/schaller-games.pdf

Smith, K., & Smith, S. (n.d.). What is a Learning Game? Retrieved March 30, 2020, from http://headsupteaching.com/?p=37

Warren, S. J., & Jones, G. (2017). What Is (and Is Not) a Learning Game?. In Learning Games (pp. 15-26). Springer, Cham. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-46829-7_2

What is a learning game? (2018, October). Retrieved March 30, 2020, from http://edugames.tips/lg-faq.html

Zheng, R., & Gardner, M. K. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of research on serious games for educational applications. IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/book/handbook-research-serious-games-educational/147023#table-of-contents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Other than using a game for learning... what makes a learning game? This article will answer what leaning games are. In addition, common problems and challenges with learning games will be reviewed. Key characteristics of learning games will be provided as well as attributes that make good learning games.

# data[].attributes.body
"The effect of games and simulations on higher education: a systematic literature review"

This article is very interesting in addition to being quite consequant.
I would give it 3.5 stars on 5 because, on one hand, it was gripping but on the other hand, extremely long so I thought that it was not so easy to stay focus until the end of the article.
I thought it was fascinating because I learnt ofr instance, where most of the studies about serious games are carried out, what capacities/subjects can we learn about (for example : management, business, maths,...), what are the results of the studies about learning games  : "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".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Review article

Open Access

Published:

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

234k Accesses

109 Citations

41 Altmetric

Metrics

Abstract

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

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.

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

Games

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):

Simulations

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).

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.).

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.

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

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):

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):

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.

Results

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.

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):

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.

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

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.

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):

Cognitive outcomes

Knowledge acquisition

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.

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.

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.

Instructors' engagement

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

Interaction and feedback

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.

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

Motivation and engagement

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.

Faculty role

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.

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

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.

Discussion

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.

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).

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.

References

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

Affiliations

1. Laureate Online Education / European University Cyprus, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Dimitrios Vlachopoulos

2. European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Agoritsa Makri

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
Keywords

Game-based learning

Digital games

Simulations

Pedagogical use

Higher education

Learning outcomes

Cognitive goals

Behavioural goals

Affective goals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The effect of games and simulations on higher education: a systematic literature review - International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
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.

# data[].attributes.body
For me, this game (and website) is extremely interesting and usefull because I would like to know all the european countries and capitals but I never take the time to sit at my desk and learn them the way we do in class because it's not very funny. But this way, with this game, I find it way more interesting because it's interractive.
Moreover, I learnt the same of Europe countries in English (I didn't know all of them), so my vocabulary increased (and I think knowing the names of the countries can be really usefull).
It is a very nice way to learn geography.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Europe: Countries - Map Quiz Game - Seterra

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you have an upcoming geography quiz on Europe but can't tell Austria apart from Hungary on a map? This Europe map quiz game has got you covered. From Iceland to Greece and everything in between, this geography study aid will get you up to speed in no time, while also being fun.If you want to practice offline, download our printable maps of Europe in pdf format.

# data[].attributes.body
"Learning with serious games: Is fun playing the game a predictor of learning success?"

For me, this article was kinf of fascinating because I read that, for children, the joy and excitement linked by a serious game is not only due to the game itself, but also by how the teacher (in a school environnement) bring it into the lesson, how they present it, the rules they indicate, etc.
I'd rate it 4/5 because of that.
I took of one point because it was long ans some data are not easy to understand if we are not totally focus on the article.

# data[].attributes.body
I loved this game : 5/5.
I managed to answer 28 questions (on 40) correctly so I think it means that I have a little vocabulary but I can improve my skills. An dI really want to. It was a fun way to evaluate myself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About The Vocabulary Test

There are 40 questions in this vocabulary test.

They cover all levels from elementary (A1) to advanced (C1) in a random order. You will get your score at the end.

Don't use a dictionary - the idea is to find your natural level

What Next?

Now you've found your level with this vocabulary level test, why not try a class to get advice from one of our Oxford Online English teachers?

Book your first class for just 8.99 USD!

During your class, we'll talk to you about what you need
You can make payments and book classes through the website
Start studying!

Get Started

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Take this English vocabulary level test from Oxford Online English to check your level for free. Reading, listening & grammar also available.

# data[].attributes.body
As the one before, this test was great. 5/5!
I answered 22 questions correctly (on 24), I'm happy about it. But I thought that it was just a bit simple.
I would like to progress more.
In order to do so, I am going to watch films and series in English, first with English subtitles (what I already do) and then, without subtitles. I also would like to watch movies from different countries in order to get used to different accents (american, british, australian,...).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About The Listening Test

There are six parts in this listening test, and four questions for each part.

You can listen to the recordings more than once if you need to. However, you shouldn't listen more than three times. The test is here to find your natural listening level. Ideally, you should listen only once or twice.

You will get your results after you have answered all the questions.

What Next?

Now you've found your level, why not try a class to get advice from one of our Oxford Online English teachers?

Book your first class for just 8.99 USD!

During your class, we'll talk to you about what you need
You can make payments and book classes through the website
Start studying!

Get Started

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Take our free English listening level test and find your English level. Tests for reading, grammar and vocabulary also available.

# data[].attributes.body
During this work, this semester, I learnt about what's called "serious games". I knew that serious game can be a fun way to learn a few things, but I didn't realise how many thing we can learn thanks to it. I knew that we could do some vocabulary test, or grammar ones, or that kids could learn the colors by playing games but I actually did not imagined that buisness could be learnt by playing games (of course not all of it, but a few basics) of anatomy, a little of medecine, geography and so on.
I also didn't know that not just the game we play is important, but the way it is brought to us (by teachers, for instance). Rules are very important too in order to play well.

I learnt about myself that I enjoy playing serious games, but not so much for learning properly speaking, but to revise things already more or less acquired.

About my personnal evaluation, I would say that it was not a topic I was passionate about so I did not put a 100% of myself in it, yet, I learnt many things and I was able to evaluate my English skills (I would not have the idea of doing it if I didn't look it for this work).

# data[].attributes.body
I found this game just a week before my terminal exam and it helped me a lot to learn my 20 amino acids!
I rate it 4.5/5 just because the amino acids molecules are not drawn the same way they are in my lesson so it was a little confusing at the begining but once I understood well, it was cool.
Great serious game.