Game parts gave small knowledge gains; motivation and task gains were less certain.

The review

1. 01

   Who took part

   Learners in schools, universities, workplaces and informal courses took part. The three main analyses covered 1,686 learners for knowledge, 2,246 for motivation and 951 for tasks.

2. 02

   What they did

   Game parts were added to learning, such as stories, characters, competition or teamwork. Each game group was compared with learners who did the same work without game parts. The studies ran from one day to more than half a year.

3. 03

   What happened

   In the strictest studies, the knowledge gains held up, but the motivation and task gains did not hold up. The task gains appeared in studies that did not assign people by chance, but not in those that did. Three studies with very large knowledge gains were dropped after the authors looked at the chart of results.

What the review found

1. HelpedGoals

   Across 19 studies, game parts raised knowledge test scores more than ordinary teaching did.

   • Rule: Make it enjoyabletested

   Pooled analysis of 19 studies with 1,686 people · vs ordinary teaching without game parts · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

2. HelpedMotivation

   Game parts made learners more motivated than ordinary teaching, but strict studies found no clear gain.

   • Rule: Make it enjoyabletested

   Pooled analysis of 16 studies with 2,246 people · vs ordinary teaching without game parts · they rated themselves · ⚠ the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

3. HelpedGoals

   Compared with ordinary teaching, game parts gave task results a small boost, but the strictest studies found no clear gain.

   • Rule: Make it enjoyabletested

   Pooled analysis of 9 studies with 951 people · vs ordinary teaching without game parts · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

4. HelpedGoals

   Competing as a team gave clear task gains over ordinary teaching, but solo games did not.

   • Action: Team up on a shared goaltested
   • Rule: Compete or compare with otherstested

   Pooled analysis of 3 studies with 135 people · vs ordinary teaching without game parts · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

Source