Content area
Serious games in education are often tied to digital learning environments, which require complex gamified content and systems to enhance students’ motivation. However, such digital-focused approaches risk widening the digital divide and may lead to digital addiction. Additionally, games rooted in behaviorism may not meaningfully improve student performance. This paper argues that inquiry-based methods can better engage college students by stimulating their thinking and enhancing learning outcomes in natural, playful settings without relying on advanced digital infrastructure. Through a case study of low-tech serious games in a theory-based and interdisciplinary course in design, this paper demonstrates that hands-on and experiential learning tasks foster a deeper comprehension of the subject matter, bringing significant performance improvements compared to traditional lecture-based instruction. Encouraging critical thinking before introducing new concepts is central to this approach. However, spurring such thinking can also introduce the risk of knowledge confusion, highlighting the need for regular reviews or assignments to mitigate this issue in future implementations. The proposed games are simple to execute and replicate, requiring minimal technical resources. This paper suggests that serious game design for theory courses in higher education can be effectively carried out in low-tech settings, avoiding the deepening of the digital divide while contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequality).
Introduction
Many college students today experience classroom disengagement, often driven by smartphone addiction, which manifests in distracted behaviors like texting or social media (Mahsud et al., 2021). In response, the gamification of education has gained prominence as a strategy to enhance student engagement, particularly since 2010 (Sailer and Homner, 2020; Yıldırım and Şen, 2019). Gamification involves incorporating game elements in non-game contexts to foster user interaction and engagement (Deterding et al., 2011). In higher education, gamification refers to game mechanisms and techniques applied to provide a goal or task-oriented learning process that stimulates students’ motivation, sustains their cognitive competencies, and aids them in understanding complex, serious learning content with playful experiences (Duggal et al., 2021). One tangible form of gamification is serious games, which help students grasp specific learning topics while achieving educational objectives (Krath et al., 2021). Unlike traditional games designed solely for entertainment, serious games are defined by their explicit educational purposes (Becker, 2021). Research has shown that integrating serious games into learning activities positively influences students’ emotions and learning experiences (Lim-Fei et al., 2016; Nazry and Romano, 2017), enhancing their engagement and motivation and even altering their behavior (Smiderle et al., 2020; Stott and Neustaedter, 2013). Educators also believe learning by gameplaying can enhance students’ teamwork and communication skills (Martí-Parreño et al., 2019).
Despite these advantages, several challenges remain in implementing serious games in education. First, serious games are often linked to digital learning environments that require virtual platforms for learning activities and student behavior management (see Bal, 2019; Yildirim, 2017). Many popular game design elements, such as points and badges, rely on online systems for tracking and presentation (Strmečki et al., 2016). Mildner and ‘Floyd’ Mueller (2016) argue that technology should be an inspiration and tool to make serious games more engaging, offering many examples of games that rely on software or apps. However, excessively relying on digital platforms can impose technological burdens and increase education costs. Moreover, there is a lack of research exploring non-digital or low-tech gamification settings, which may exacerbate educational inequalities between rural and urban schools (Zainuddin et al., 2020).
Another concern is that students may become overly focused on playing the educational games rather than learning from them (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006). Various studies report inconsistent or even contradictory effects of gamification on student learning outcomes and performance (see Metwally et al., 2021; Recabarren et al., 2021; Zhonggen, 2019). Additionally, over-reliance on extrinsic motivators, such as rewards, may hinder deeper learning (Faiella and Ricciardi, 2015; Hung, 2017), and complex game designs can even create cognitive overload for learners (Cowley et al., 2014).
Given these challenges, this paper focuses on two key objectives: (1) to explore the use of low-tech, low-cost serious games that minimize the technological and financial burden on educators while enhancing student learning and (2) to examine whether such low-tech serious games can improve student performance in addition to fostering engagement. To this end, the study proposes two serious games to engage students in the theory course and improve their learning outcomes. These approaches aim to stimulate critical thinking while reducing the technical requirements, making them accessible and affordable for educators and researchers to replicate. This study presents experiments conducted in two different classes of a design theory course, analyzes students’ scores and performance, and outlines critical implications based on the experimental results.
Serious games in education and current research gaps
Serious games and their association with the digital divide
Ekin et al. (2023) note that although the concept of serious games has existed for over 50 years, nearly 70% of research on the topic has been published between 2012 and 2021. They attribute the growing use of serious games in education to advances in personal computers, mobile devices, software, and graphics technology. Applications of serious games span various disciplines, such as assessment, teamwork, and physical education, and require expertise across fields like computer science, psychology, and design (Dörner et al., 2016).
Many studies demonstrate the broad range of technology-driven applications in serious games. For example, Kinkley (2009) developed a virtual museum game for art history education, while Arrighi and Walker (2014) used participatory video games for climate change education. Ahmedien (2017) created a neural interactive artwork in a puzzle format, and Rosyid et al. (2018) designed chemistry games incorporating computer systems with different difficulty levels. Additionally, Khaleghi et al. (2022) designed an intervention game for dyslexic children using the Unity game engine, and Huang et al. (2024) developed a smartphone app for public education on antibiotic resistance. Although diverse in subject matter, these studies rely on computers, mobile devices, or the Internet to engage students and support learning, reflecting the dominant trend of integrating digital technology with gamification in education (Hanus and Fox, 2015).
However, the emphasis on digital systems raises concerns. Some teachers may feel pressured or anxious about implementing new technologies, which could hinder effective usage (Sánchez-Mena et al., 2019). Additionally, introducing online games as educational tools may inadvertently lead to digital addiction (Andrade et al., 2016). More critically, the reliance on technology in educational games risks exacerbating the digital divide (Apperley and Gray, 2020).
The digital divide in education refers to disparities between rural and urban schools regarding access to and proficiency with new technologies (Radovanović et al., 2015), which can undermine educational equity and inclusion (Lembani et al., 2020). Valdez and Javier (2021) highlight three levels of the digital divide in education: inequality in access to hardware and services, inequality in skills and usage, and inequality resulting from the outcomes of Internet use. Beyond unequal access to resources among learners, the digital divide also impacts higher education faculty, varying by age, gender, and institution type (Soomro et al., 2020). The digital divide can even extend to broader social dimensions such as sexuality, race, and disability (Apperley and Gray, 2020). These disparities directly and indirectly influence the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequality) (Valdez and Javier, 2021).
This paper does not oppose the use of digital tools; however, given the cost and burden of developing digital-based serious games for educators and learners, it is essential to explore low-tech alternatives. This aligns with the United Nations’ initiative for “Education for All.” Consequently, this study focuses on using low-tech serious games emphasizing classroom activities and face-to-face interactions. The goal is to contribute to educational equality and sustainable development.
Research on the performance of educational games in low-tech or non-tech environments remains limited (Zainuddin et al., 2020). Among the few available journal articles, Capdarest-Arest et al. (2019) developed a low-tech card game for library research skills in health sciences. Zainuddin and Keumala (2021) explored hand-made rewards like badges to engage young learners. However, these studies did not statistically analyze student performance or verify learning outcomes. Haruna et al. (2019) used participatory-designed games for sexual health education in a low-tech Sub-Saharan African context, showing improved student outcomes compared to traditional methods. Nevertheless, these games still relied on digital platforms and an imported game engine, creating accessibility challenges for students and teachers without access to computers or mobile devices.
In summary, there is a significant research gap on the effectiveness of low-tech serious games in reducing educational costs and improving student performance. Addressing this gap is crucial for advancing equitable and accessible education.
Game elements and the key to improving student performance
Integrating serious games in education involves applying game mechanics, dynamics, and elements to create engaging learning activities. Game mechanics are the foundational tools, such as challenges and rewards, while dynamics describe how students interact with these mechanics, often through missions or collaboration (Zichermann and Cunningham, 2011). Game elements, such as points, badges, leaderboards, and feedback, drive these mechanics and dynamics to help engage learners (Nah et al., 2014).
In a review of 34 studies, Dicheva and Dichev (2015) identified 20 common game elements, noting points, badges, and leaderboards (PBLs) as the most widely used. These elements are often associated with visible status and social engagement, helping students feel a sense of achievement and motivation through peer interactions (Başal et al., (2019)). However, while PBLs have been shown to improve student engagement, their impact on learning outcomes remains mixed. For example, Hanus and Fox (2015) found that students in a gamified course using PBLs reported lower motivation, satisfaction, and final exam scores compared to a non-gamified course. Such findings suggest that gamification may not benefit all students equally and highlight the need for teachers to assess their class goals and student characteristics carefully (Stott and Neustaedter, 2013).
Many studies on serious games and gamification take a behaviorist approach, where game elements serve as stimuli to influence student behavior. However, relying too heavily on extrinsic motivators may undermine students’ intrinsic motivation (Hung, 2017). Intrinsic motivation, driven by personal interest, is especially vital in higher education, as it supports self-directed, critical thinking—key aspects of constructivist learning (Tovey, 2016; Sawyer, 2017). Thus, it is crucial to recognize that students’ desire for knowledge does not always stem from external incentives. Inquiry-based learning, for example, fosters active student thinking without relying on explicit rewards (see Buchanan et al., 2016). In this approach, students engage with data or problem-solving tasks, positioning them as central participants in the learning process (Prince and Felder, 2007; Spronken-Smith et al., 2011). Nichols et al. (2021) found that inquiry-based learning promotes classroom dialog and critical thinking, enhancing educational outcomes.
This paper does not dismiss the value of extrinsic motivation in learning activities. Instead, it emphasizes integrating extrinsic and intrinsic factors within a cohesive learning system. By thoughtfully combining game-related elements, educators can encourage inquiry and active thinking to enhance student performance without relying on complex or costly digital systems.
A case study of low-tech serious games in a design theory course
Research hypothesis and the subject
Building on previous discussions, the case study has two primary objectives: (1) to design serious games in low-tech and low-cost environments and (2) to evaluate whether these games can improve student performance compared to traditional lectures. The central argument of this study is that the critical determinant of learning outcomes is whether students are encouraged to think critically when encountering new concepts. In traditional lectures, students tend to receive information from the teacher passively. They may struggle to retain and fully understand new material without active engagement or self-exploration. This study advocates integrating inquiry-based learning into serious game design to create opportunities for deeper thinking and improved performance. Accordingly, the primary research hypothesis is as follows:
“Before introducing new concepts, teachers should encourage students to approach problems with their unique perspectives or experiences. The inquiry-based, trial-and-error process can stimulate students’ thinking, enhance their understanding of new knowledge, and improve learning outcomes.”
To test this hypothesis, this study developed two types of serious games: Quiz Games and Match Games. Both games incorporate inquiry-based learning and trial-and-error processes to promote critical thinking about new knowledge. These games were designed and implemented in low-tech, low-cost environments and applied to the Introduction to Design Principles course, a required course for first-year students. This course was selected for several reasons:
Theory-based content: As a theory-heavy course, it introduces fundamental design principles. Students often feel less motivated in theory courses than hands-on learning experiences, making it an ideal candidate for serious games.
Interdisciplinary scope: The course covers a wide range of topics, including design history, aesthetics, technology, and human factors. This allows the results to have broader implications across multiple domains and subjects.
Division into two classes: Due to the large number of students, the course was split into two sections (Class A and Class B). This division facilitated the comparison between the experimental and control groups, making it easier to evaluate the effectiveness of the serious games.
By incorporating serious games into the Introduction to Design Principles course, this study aims to determine whether fostering active thinking and utilizing trial-and-error methods can enhance student learning outcomes and motivation.
Experimental procedure and participants
The experimental procedure involved three key steps: implementing serious games and traditional lectures, comparing and analyzing student scores, and conducting a questionnaire survey. The steps are detailed below:
Implementation of serious games and traditional lectures: The Introduction to Design Principles course was divided into four units. Units 1 (Human Factors) and 2 (Industrial Design) were taught during the first half of the semester, with Quiz Games used for the experimental group and traditional lectures for the control group. Units 3 (Public Arts) and 4 (Architecture) were taught later in the semester, with Match Games for the experimental group and traditional lectures for the control group. During these four experiments, Class A and Class B alternated as the experimental group (see Fig. 1). Classroom observations noted students’ engagement, including dozing off, smartphone use, and reactions to the learning activities.
Fig. 1 [Images not available. See PDF.]
The framework of experiments for comparing traditional lectures and the proposed serious games.
Comparison of student performance: Student performance was assessed through paper-and-pencil tests administered within two weeks of completing each unit without prior notice to students. The study used four cross-class comparisons (i to iv) and four within-subjects comparisons (v to viii) (see Fig. 1). Cross-class comparisons involving different student samples were analyzed using an independent sample t-test to assess score differences. Within-subject comparisons using the same sample groups were analyzed using a paired sample t-test. These comparisons helped determine whether significant differences existed between student performance in serious games versus traditional lectures.
Questionnaire survey: After completing all units and exams, a questionnaire was conducted to assess whether the proposed games stimulated student thinking and motivation. The survey included closed-ended, multiple-choice questions. The arithmetic means and standard deviations of these responses were analyzed to clarify students’ views on the games and learning. Additionally, correlation analysis was applied to explore the relationship between thinking stimulation, learning motivation, and memory retention.
The study involved 72 students in Class A and 77 in Class B, all majoring in information communication. Introduction to Design Principles is a first-year required course, primarily composed of students aged 19–20. Class A included 33 males and 39 females, while Class B included 40 males and 37 females.
In addition to a close gender balance, the students in both classes shared similar baseline characteristics, supporting meaningful comparisons between the experimental and control groups. First, they generally scored in the low to middle range on the college entrance exam among domestic candidates. Although individual admission scores varied slightly, the department ensured that the overall academic level of the two classes was roughly equivalent by dividing students based on odd and even student numbers randomly distributed by the university. Secondly, as the students had not been previously exposed to the course content in Introduction to Design Principles, this course provided a fresh learning experience for all students, resulting in comparable levels of prerequisite knowledge across the two classes. Lastly, students had already experienced two weeks of preliminary lessons before the experimental units began. Classroom observations during these initial weeks noted no major differences in engagement behaviors (e.g., smartphone use, dozing off) across groups. The above factors indicate that the two classes’ academic readiness and engagement levels were well-matched, supporting the study’s comparability.
Design of two serious games
The Quiz Game and Match Game were both inquiry-based and included a trial-and-error process, allowing students to explore problems before being introduced to new concepts.
Quiz Game: This game was straightforward to operate. Lecture slides were divided into approximately ten concepts, with one to three multiple-choice questions designed for each concept. The teacher posed these questions before presenting the relevant slides, and students answered based on their inferences. Importantly, no ad-hoc digital systems were required. The only technological tools used were a computer with PowerPoint and a projector. Printed posters could easily replace the slides for schools with limited access to technology.
Figure 2 illustrates an example from the Quiz Game. The experimental group was first presented with a question about percentiles in the Human Factors unit before viewing the explanation slide. This approach encouraged students to engage in problem-solving before receiving the formal lesson. In contrast, the control group viewed the slide directly without any pre-questioning. In the Quiz Game, students worked in teams of five to seven, and teams that answered three consecutive questions correctly earned points toward their final grade. This process encouraged student interaction and inquiry-based learning. The teacher alternated between asking questions and presenting explanations to maintain student engagement and avoid prolonged passive listening.
Fig. 2 [Images not available. See PDF.]
An example of instructional materials in Unit 1 (Human Factors) for the traditional lecture and the Quiz Game.
Match Game: In the Match Game, students were tasked with assembling pieces of information rather than answering questions. The teacher divided key concepts into smaller segments, and students worked in teams to match them. For instance, in the Architecture unit, students in the experimental group were given printed materials, including 16 images of architectural works, names of architects, locations of buildings, and clues such as structure and symbolism. They then worked collaboratively for 40 min without using the internet.
Figure 3 provides an example from the Architecture unit. Students in the experimental group had to match building images with clues, while the control group learned the material directly through lecture slides. The Match Game allowed students to engage with the content in a hands-on, exploratory way. Once the task was completed, the teacher revealed the correct answers using slides and awarded points to the top three teams.
Fig. 3 [Images not available. See PDF.]
An example of instructional materials in Unit 4 (Architecture) for the traditional lecture and the Match Game.
Both games aimed to enhance critical thinking by allowing students to explore and infer knowledge before it was formally introduced.
Student performance
Figure 1 illustrates the eight comparisons of student scores. As previously mentioned, an independent sample t-test was used for cross-class comparisons (i) to (iv), as shown in Table 1. In contrast, a paired sample t-test was applied to within-subject comparisons (v) to (viii), as shown in Table 2. Students absent from serious games or traditional lectures were excluded to ensure the accuracy of the analysis.
Table 1. Cross-class comparisons of student performance.
Score comparison | Lecture | Serious games | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | t | df | p | |
Comparison (i) (Class A–B) | 21.43 (N = 70) | 13.85 | 32.77 (N = 74) | 16.67 | −4.427 | 142 | 0.000*** |
Comparison (ii) (Class B–A) | 34.68 (N = 73) | 21.13 | 31.61 (N = 67) | 16.74 | 0.958 | 138 | 0.340 |
Comparison (iii) (Class B–A) | 35.61 (N = 65) | 20.17 | 61.08 (N = 60) | 20.36 | −7.019 | 123 | 0.000*** |
Comparison (iv) (Class A–B) | 35.98 (N = 44) | 18.10 | 51.83 (N = 40) | 19.81 | −3.831 | 82 | 0.000*** |
***Significance at the 0.001 level.
Table 2. Within-subjects comparisons of student performance.
Score comparison | Lecture | Serious games | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | t | df | p | |
Comparison (v) (Class A–A) | 21.32 (N = 65) | 14.24 | 30.95 (N = 65) | 21.09 | −3.455 | 64 | 0.001** |
Comparison (vi) (Class B–B) | 34.99 (N = 71) | 16.88 | 32.68 (N = 71) | 16.67 | 1.048 | 70 | 0.298 |
Comparison (vii) (Class A–A) | 34.74 (N = 39) | 17.95 | 62.46 (N = 39) | 18.24 | −7.061 | 38 | 0.000*** |
Comparison (viii) (Class B–B) | 36.63 (N = 38) | 19.45 | 52.42 (N = 38) | 20.09 | −3.842 | 37 | 0.000*** |
**Significance at the 0.01 level; ***Significance at the 0.001 level.
Table 1 reveals that comparisons (i), (iii), and (iv) show significant improvements in student performance in serious games (p < 0.001). However, comparison (ii) shows no significant difference (p = 0.340). The mean difference in comparison (i) is 11.34 points, while comparisons (iii) and (iv) show even more considerable improvements, with mean differences of 25.47 and 15.85 points, respectively. This indicates that the Match Game had a more pronounced impact on student performance than the Quiz Game.
For within-subject comparisons, Table 2 demonstrates that comparisons (v), (vii), and (viii) show significant differences between traditional lectures and serious games (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). However, comparison (vi) did not show a significant difference (p = 0.298). Like Table 1, the Match Game led to more significant improvements in student scores than the Quiz Game.
In summary, six of the eight comparisons indicated significant improvements in performance with serious games compared to traditional lectures. The two comparisons associated with the Quiz Game did not show significant improvements in student scores, while all comparisons linked to the Match Game demonstrated notable gains in performance.
Table 3 presents the average number of unanswered and incorrect responses on the tests. The data indicates that students taking serious games retained more information than those in traditional lecture-based classes. Across all units, students from gamified classes had fewer unanswered questions than those from lecture-based classes. Except for Unit 2, incorrect responses were also lower in the gamified groups.
Table 3. Comparisons of unanswered questions and wrong answers.
Answer comparison | Mean of unanswered questions | Mean of wrong answers | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Lecture | Serious games | Lecture | Serious games | |
Unit 1 (Class A–B) | 3.57 | 2.36 | 4.43 | 3.85 |
Unit 2 (Class B–A) | 3.88 | 3.27 | 4.60 | 5.54 |
Unit 3 (Class B–A) | 1.91 | 0.15 | 4.20 | 2.85 |
Unit 4 (Class A–B) | 2.61 | 1.08 | 3.91 | 3.45 |
Questionnaire survey
The questionnaire received 81 responses and consisted of ten mandatory and closed-ended multiple-choice questions. Nine of these questions used a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represented “strongly disagree” and 5 represented “strongly agree.” The final question asked students to choose their preferred teaching method (serious games or traditional lectures). Table 4 presents the detailed results for each question.
Table 4. The questionnaire survey and its results.
Questions | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|
Q1. Compared to traditional lectures, such games make it easier to memorize the instructional content. | 3.99 | 1.03 |
Q2. These games can provoke my learning motivation. | 3.69 | 1.25 |
Q3. I prefer group discussions to thinking alone when meeting new issues. | 3.27 | 1.14 |
Q4. Compared to traditional lectures, such games make me more concentrated in the classroom. | 3.70 | 1.16 |
Q5. Such games bring confusion to the knowledge learned. | 2.95 | 1.15 |
Q6. I am usually unafraid to express my opinions in team games. | 3.42 | 1.05 |
Q7. Such games are time-wasting and hinder my learning. | 2.15 | 1.22 |
Q8. Providing such interactive games in the classroom is necessary. | 4.04 | 0.94 |
Q9. Such games and interactions in the classroom can spur my thinking. | 3.93 | 0.91 |
Games | Lectures | |
Q10. Overall, I prefer (1) serious games or (2) traditional lectures. | 67.9% (55/81) | 32.1% (26/81) |
The average score for whether the games spurred thinking (Q9) was 3.93, suggesting that students generally agreed that the inquiry-based processes positively affected their thinking. The standard deviation of 0.91 indicates some variation in student opinions, but the overall trend remained favorable. Regarding whether the games helped students remember content (Q1) and whether they increased learning motivation (Q2), the average scores were 3.99 and 3.69, respectively, both reflecting positive attitudes. However, the standard deviations of 1.03 (Q1) and 1.25 (Q2) indicate that some students had differing views.
To further investigate whether stimulating thinking also enhanced memory retention or learning motivation, a correlation analysis was conducted between Q9 and Q1, as well as Q9 and Q2. Table 5 shows that there is a significant correlation between spurring thinking (Q9) and aiding memory (Q1) (p < 0.001), with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.468, which is generally considered a moderate correlation. Similarly, there is a moderate but significant correlation between spurring thinking (Q9) and provoking motivation (Q2) (p < 0.001), with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.531. These results suggest that inquiry-based and trial-and-error processes not only stimulate students’ thinking but might also help them better remember course content and increase their motivation to learn.
Table 5. Correlation analyses between spurring thinking, aiding memory, and provoking motivation.
Aiding memory (Q1) | Provoking motivation (Q2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Spurring thinking (Q9) | Pearson Correlation | 0.468*** | 0.531*** |
Sig. (two-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
N | 81 | 81 |
***Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).
Regarding teaching preferences, 67.9% of students preferred the proposed serious games, while 32.1% favored traditional lectures. To explore whether conceptual confusion during the games influenced students’ preference for teaching methods, a correlation analysis was conducted between students’ preferences and their responses to whether the games caused knowledge confusion (Q5). A Mann–Whitney U-test was applied since the Q5 responses were not normally distributed. Table 6 shows a significant correlation between students’ preference for teaching methods and their reported levels of knowledge confusion during the games (p < 0.001). Specifically, students who preferred traditional lectures were more likely to report confusion during the inquiry-based games. This suggests that conceptual confusion may influence some students to favor traditional lectures over serious games.
Table 6. Correlation analysis between students’ preference for teaching methods and their reported knowledge confusion.
Ranks | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Students’ preference (Q10) | N | Mean rank | Sum of ranks |
Serious games | 55 | 34.31 | 1887.00 |
Traditional lectures | 26 | 55.15 | 1434.00 |
Total | 81 | ||
Test statistics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge confusion (Q5) | |||
Mann–Whitney U | 347.000 | ||
Wilcoxon W | 1887.00 | ||
Z | −3.845 | ||
Asymp. Sig. (two-tailed) | 0.000*** | ||
***Asymptotic significance at the 0.001 level.
Explanations and implications
The student performance results and the number of unanswered questions aligned with the classroom observations made during the study. In traditional lectures for Units 1 and 2, 10 to 20 students intermittently dozed off or were distracted by their smartphones. However, introducing the Quiz Game reduced this number to about 5 to 7 students, as the game encouraged discussion and interaction. Despite this improvement, some students resorted to using their smartphones when their teams took longer to answer the questions, leading to occasional disengagement.
The gap in student engagement between traditional lectures and serious games widened as the course progressed. In Units 3 and 4, nearly half of the students in the control group fell asleep during traditional lectures, likely due to increased assignments from other courses and more extracurricular activities. This also explains the rising number of absences, which reduced the sample sizes in Tables 1 and 2. In contrast, students participating in the Match Game remained highly engaged, with none dozing off, as they were actively involved in discussing and classifying instructional materials. During the Match Game, students eagerly responded to the answers, as they were keen to validate their guesses and share their perspectives with their teams.
Both the Match Game and Quiz Game led to higher levels of student engagement and interaction compared to traditional lectures. However, the Match Game, which involved hands-on activities, was particularly effective in maintaining student focus. Although serious games enhanced participation and engagement, there was no significant improvement in student scores for Unit 2. This suggests that the performance of Class B did not decline after removing the Quiz Game, nor did Class A improve significantly after participating in it. The Unit 2 examination took place before mid-semester, which could explain why Class B students may not have experienced a loss of focus due to extracurricular activities at that point.
Although Class A made some progress, their mean score was slightly lower than Class B’s in Unit 2. To better understand this, Table 3 was analyzed. In Unit 2, Class A had fewer unanswered questions (3.27) than Class B (3.88), but Class A also had more incorrect answers (5.54 compared to Class B’s 4.60). This discrepancy suggests that while Class A retained more information, they developed false memories or misunderstandings of the material, leading to lower scores. These results are consistent with the findings in Table 4, where some students indicated that inquiry-based learning could sometimes produce confusing ideas (Q5). A few students noted that while serious games helped them initially memorize new concepts, the retention did not last long, and without review, they struggled on tests. This highlights the importance of incorporating regular review sessions or assigning homework to reinforce students’ understanding.
Finally, both the Quiz Game and Match Game incorporated various game elements, such as goals and challenges, points, time constraints, and social interaction. However, classroom observations revealed that points played a relatively minor role in motivating students. Instead, students focused more on participating and interacting with their team members. Social engagement, driven by goals and challenges, emerged as the critical factor in the success of such games. The main difference between the Quiz Game and the Match Game was the scale and duration of the tasks. The Quiz Game involved answering individual questions, with the team’s challenge ending when they answered incorrectly. In contrast, the Match Game required sustained effort from every team member to piece together all the clues, resulting in deeper engagement and more significant interaction throughout the activity.
Based on this analysis, the proposed serious games did improve students’ learning performance. The inquiry-based learning and trial-and-error processes provided valuable opportunities for critical thinking, enhancing students’ motivation to learn. Therefore, the research hypothesis was supported. However, stimulating thinking also introduces the risk of knowledge confusion. Although most students agreed that learning by such interactive games is necessary (Q8, mean = 4.04), a few preferred traditional lectures due to the potential for confusion. Future iterations of these activities should include mechanisms to address this issue.
Finally, it is essential to note that the proposed serious games are low-tech. The only technology used was the teacher’s computer and projector; no additional digital systems or mobile devices were required. In environments without computer access, teachers can explain concepts using printed posters. The preparation of instructional materials is simple and low-cost, requiring only slides with questions and printed handouts or cards for the students.
Conclusions, limitations, and future research
One of the primary gaps in previous studies on educational serious games is the over-reliance on online systems and behaviorism-oriented game elements to engage and track student behavior, which has often resulted in uncertain learning outcomes. Additionally, such gamification approaches can be costly, potentially exacerbating the digital divide and creating unequal educational opportunities.
To address these concerns and contribute to SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequality), this study focused on strategies for stimulating student thinking in low-tech environments. Instead of emphasizing specific game elements, the study prioritized understanding the curriculum context, environmental setup, and instructional content, as suggested by Ofosu-Ampong (2020). Inquiry-based and trial-and-error processes were integrated as foundational approaches for designing learning activities and engaging students. Furthermore, following Kapp’s (2012) idea of balancing extrinsic and intrinsic motivators within game mechanics, this study aimed to improve learning outcomes.
Engaging students through hands-on tasks and group discussions proved to be effective. Larger, more challenging tasks led to greater participation, interaction, and teamwork, which in turn helped students better assimilate new concepts. This is especially significant, as teamwork skills are essential for training in higher education and design education (Tucker and Abbasi, 2016). Therefore, the hands-on tasks proposed in this study may also foster communication and interpersonal skills, even in theory-based courses. However, additional mechanisms, such as regular review sessions or homework assignments, are necessary to help students clarify any misconceptions and avoid false memories.
The findings suggest that the impact of serious games may not be as strong when students are already actively engaged. This echoes the conclusions of Ferriz-Valero et al. (2020), who noted that gamification tends to be more effective for less motivated students. As such, implementing serious games later in the semester or closer to the end of the term may help re-engage distracted or fatigued students and positively shift the classroom dynamic. Educators should carefully observe students’ attitudes and behaviors to determine the best timing for incorporating gameplay.
The proposed serious games are particularly suitable for rural schools or developing regions with limited resources, offering an equitable approach to student engagement. At the same time, schools with greater resources could adapt these games for online or mobile formats to enhance scalability. Overall, these approaches allow for flexible integration across varied educational contexts, supporting both equitable access and adaptability.
Since this study designed the games based on pedagogical principles rather than focusing on specific subject knowledge, the approach could potentially be generalized to different disciplines and educational settings. For highly digital environments, these low-tech games could be adapted by integrating their inquiry-based methods with digital tools that foster similar engagement. For example, online platforms could be applied to share quiz questions and automatically track scores or points, while interactive apps could facilitate group discussions. Additionally, augmented reality (AR) technology could present more graphical content to complement quiz questions, enriching the learning experience. In these contexts, maintaining the hands-on, inquiry-based learning aspect could offer a balance between digital engagement and interactive learning.
In more teacher-centered cultural contexts, where students may be accustomed to listening rather than actively participating, adaptations could include structured facilitation strategies, such as step-by-step guidance through the games, or assigning specific roles within teams to build confidence in open discussions gradually. Implementing these low-tech games in teacher-centered settings may require additional training for instructors to support a shift toward more student-centered learning, as well as clear explanations to students about the benefits of active participation.
However, there are certain limitations to consider when applying these results in diverse educational environments, including:
Time constraints: Games that involve question-answer formats or puzzles may require more time to play, which could be challenging in courses with extensive and intensive content requirements.
Concept complexity: The trial-and-error process, which encourages students to infer based on experience or logic, may be less effective when applied to highly abstract or complex topics that lack clear clues. In these cases, game design may need adjustments, such as incorporating guiding prompts, for subjects like mathematics or science that require complex calculations or equipment.
Classroom atmosphere and communication styles: Teamwork-based games require open communication among students. In settings where students may be more reserved, such as in some Asian educational contexts, instructors might need to create a more structured and supportive environment that encourages students to share their opinions and engage in discussions (Chen, 2024). This could include using smaller, more familiar groups or scaffolded activities that build comfort with participation over time.
This study acknowledges several limitations of the questionnaire survey. First, the survey received 81 responses, and the absence of some students may have introduced sample selection bias, as those who participated might differ in important ways from those who did not, potentially impacting the generalizability of the results. Additionally, the accuracy of the survey could be affected by self-report biases, including recall bias and social desirability bias.
To mitigate recall bias in future studies, regular, in-class data collection points could be implemented, allowing students to report their engagement and reflections immediately following each game session or unit. This approach would help capture students’ experiences more accurately and reduce potential memory distortions over time. Additionally, conducting follow-up interviews could cross-validate survey responses, providing deeper insights into students’ thinking and engagement levels that may not be fully captured by the survey alone.
To address social desirability bias, this study ensured anonymity in the survey responses, encouraging students to provide honest feedback. For future research, using anonymous online surveys with clear instructions emphasizing the importance of candid responses could further support honest reporting. Additionally, brief in-class reminders that their feedback will significantly improve the teaching and learning experience may motivate students to provide more accurate responses.
Furthermore, because the survey was relatively simplified, future research could benefit from a more detailed questionnaire. For example, incorporating questions on specific aspects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation—such as enjoyment, interest, or perceived rewards—would offer a more nuanced understanding of student engagement. Conducting in-depth, face-to-face interviews could further complement survey data and help researchers gather richer, qualitative insights into students’ motivations and experiences.
While this study demonstrates the benefits of low-tech serious games in fostering student engagement and critical thinking, there are practical challenges to consider when applying these methods across various educational settings in the future. First, although low-tech games minimize the need for digital resources, they still require careful preparation and planning to ensure alignment with learning objectives. Teachers may need to spend additional time adapting their materials to fit the inquiry-based, hands-on format, which could be challenging in resource-constrained environments or for educators with limited time. Furthermore, the successful implementation of these games relies heavily on teachers’ facilitation skills, especially in guiding group discussions, encouraging participation, and maintaining students’ focus. Educators who are less experienced in interactive teaching methods may require training to develop these skills effectively.
Another potential issue is that some students may find low-tech games less engaging compared to technologically advanced methods, particularly in highly digital learning environments where they are accustomed to multimedia-rich experiences. In such settings, students might perceive low-tech games as less stimulating or interactive, which could impact their overall engagement. To address this, games can incorporate teamwork with randomly and diversely composed teams to enhance classroom dynamics (see Chen, 2024). Low-tech games could also benefit from the occasional integration of digital elements, such as simple visual aids or online discussion platforms, to enrich the experience while preserving the advantages of a low-tech approach. By taking these practical constraints into account, educators and researchers can better evaluate the suitability of low-tech serious games for different educational contexts and student preferences.
Finally, while serious games can boost classroom engagement, they cannot influence students’ behavior outside class. The learning outcomes may be limited if students do not review the material at home. Future research could explore how serious games might reinforce extracurricular learning and long-term knowledge retention.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (grant MOST 109-2410-H-155-006), and the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan (grant NSTC 110-2410-H-992-046). The author extends sincere gratitude to all participants of the case study at YZU and acknowledges the support and resources provided by NKUST in completing this article. Special thanks are also due to the anonymous editor and reviewers for their valuable feedback, which greatly enhanced the arguments and presentation of this article.
Author contributions
The author confirms sole contributions and responsibility for the research conception, design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript drafting, and final approval for publication.
Data availability
The data used in all analyses of this article have been presented as appendices and are available in supplementary information.
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Ethical approval
The ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU HREC), Taiwan, on October 6, 2020, under approval number NCKU HREC-E-109-227-2. All procedures followed the ethical guidelines required by the NCKU HREC to ensure the protection of participants’ rights and welfare. These guidelines include obtaining informed consent, maintaining participant confidentiality, and complying with all relevant institutional and regulatory standards. The scope of the approval covered the data collection and analysis of classroom activities and the questionnaire survey involving students.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants in November and December 2020. Participants were thoroughly informed about the study objectives, context, procedures, and any potential risks prior to providing their consent. Participation was entirely voluntary, and participants were explicitly informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. The informed consent also outlined that no personally identifiable information would be collected or shared in the questionnaire survey, ensuring anonymity and confidentiality. Participants were assured that the data collected would be used solely for academic purposes and that their responses would remain anonymous when presenting the research results.
Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04341-2.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Ahmedien, DAM. Reactivating the neural dimension role in interactive arts. Leonardo; 2017; 50,
Andrade FRH, Mizoguchi R, Isotani S (2016) The bright and dark sides of gamification. In: International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In: Micarelli A, Stamper J and Panourgia K (eds) Springer International Publishing, Zagreb, Croatia. pp.176–186
Apperley TH, Gray KL (2020) Digital divides and structural inequalities. In: Kowert R, Quandt T (eds) The Video Game Debate 2. Routledge, New York
Arrighi, J; Walker, G. Participatory video and games for a new climate. Leonardo; 2014; 47,
Bal, M. Use of digital games in writing education: an action research on gamification. Contemp Educ Technol; 2019; 10,
Başal, A; Kaynak, NE. Perceptions of pre-service English teachers towards the use of digital badges. Innov Educ Teach Int; 2019; 57,
Becker, K. What's the difference between gamification, serious games, educational games, and game-based learning?. Acad Lett; 2021; 209, pp. 1-4.
Buchanan, SMC; Harlan, MA; Bruce, C et al. Inquiry based learning models, information literacy, and student engagement: a literature review. Sch Librar Worldw; 2016; 22,
Capdarest-Arest, N; Opuda, E; Stark, RK. Game on!” Teaching gamification principles for library instruction to health sciences information professionals using interactive, low-tech activities and design-thinking modalities. J Med Libr Assoc; 2019; 107,
Chen, C-W. Design pedagogy for enhancing peer learning and creative thinking. Des Cult; 2024; 16,
Cowley, B; Fantato, M; Jennett, C et al. Learning when serious: psychophysiological evaluation of a technology-enhanced learning game. J Educ Technol Soc; 2014; 17,
Dörner, R; Göbel, S; Effelsberg, W et al. Serious games: foundations, concepts and practice; 2016; Cham, Springer:
Deterding S, Sicart M, Nacke L et al. (2011) Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In: CHI ‘11: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver BC, Canada, pp. 2425–2428
Dicheva D, Dichev C (2015) Gamification in education: where are we in 2015? In: E-Learn: World Conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Kona, Hawaii. pp.1445–1454
Duggal K, Singh P, Gupta LR (2021) Impact of gamification, games, and game elements in education. In: Singh PK, Polkowski Z, Tanwar S et al. (eds) Innovations in Information and Communication Technologies (IICT-2020). Springer Cham, pp. 201–210
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. Overview of research on the educational use of video games. Digit Kompet; 2006; 1,
Ekin, CC; Polat, E; Hopcan, S. Drawing the big picture of games in education: a topic modeling-based review of past 55 years. Comput Educ; 2023; 194, 104700.
Faiella, F; Ricciardi, M. Gamification and learning: a review of issues and research. J e-Learn Knowl Soc; 2015; 11,
Ferriz-Valero, A; Osterlie, O; Garcia Martinez, S et al. Gamification in physical education: evaluation of impact on motivation and academic performance within higher education. Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2020; 17,
Hanus, MD; Fox, J. Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Comput Educ; 2015; 80, pp. 152-161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019]
Haruna, H; Zainuddin, Z; Mellecker, RR et al. An iterative process for developing digital gamified sexual health education for adolescent students in low-tech settings. Inf Learn Sci; 2019; 120,
Huang, Z; Ow, JT; Tang, WE et al. An evidence-based serious game app for public education on antibiotic use and resistance: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Serious Games; 2024; 12, e59848. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39235853][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11413539][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2196/59848]
Hung, ACY. A critique and defense of gamification. J Interact Online Learn; 2017; 15,
Kapp KM (2012) The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. Wiley
Khaleghi, A; Aghaei, Z; Behnamghader, M. Developing two game-based interventions for dyslexia therapeutic interventions using gamification and serious games approaches entertainment computing journal. Entertain Comput; 2022; 42, 100482. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2022.100482]
Kinkley, J. Art thief: an educational computer game model for art historical instruction. Leonardo; 2009; 42,
Krath, J; Schürmann, L; von Korflesch, HFO. Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: a systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning. Comput Hum Behav; 2021; 125, 106963. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963]
Lembani, R; Gunter, A; Breines, M et al. The same course, different access: the digital divide between urban and rural distance education students in South Africa. J Geogr High Educ; 2020; 44,
Lim-Fei V, Woo HM, Lee MY (2016) Serious games to develop social and emotional learning in students. In: Marsh T, Ma M, Oliveira MF, et al. (eds) Serious games. Springer International Publishing, Cham. pp. 3–12
Mahsud, M; Khalaf, AJM; Mahsud, Z et al. Addiction to smartphones leading to distraction in the classrooms: effect of different cultures. J Stat Manag Syst; 2021; 24,
Martí-Parreño, J; Galbis-Córdova, A; Currás-Pérez, R. Teachers’ beliefs about gamification and competencies development: a concept mapping approach. Innov Educ Teach Int; 2019; 58,
Metwally, AHS; Nacke, LE; Chang, M et al. Revealing the hotspots of educational gamification: an umbrella review. Int J Educ Res; 2021; 109, 101832. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101832]
Mildner P, ‘Floyd’ Mueller F (2016) Design of serious games. In: Dörner R, Göbel S, Effelsberg W, et al. (eds) Serious games: foundations, concepts and practice. Springer International Publishing, Cham. pp. 57–82
Nah FF-H, Zeng Q, Telaprolu VR, et al. (2014) Gamification of education: a review of literature. In: International conference on HCI in business. Springer, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, pp. 401–409
Nazry, NNM; Romano, DM. Mood and learning in navigation-based serious games. Comput Hum Behav; 2017; 73, pp. 596-604. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.040]
Nichols, K; Musofer, R; Fynes-Clinton, L et al. Design thinking and inquiry behaviours are co-constituted in a community of inquiry middle years' science classroom context: empirical evidence for design thinking and pragmatist inquiry interconnections. Int J Technol Design Educ; 2021; 32, pp. 2527-2551. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09711-4]
Ofosu-Ampong, K. The shift to gamification in education: a review on dominant issues. J Educ Technol Syst; 2020; 49,
Prince, M; Felder, R. The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. J Coll Sci Teach; 2007; 36,
Radovanović, D; Hogan, B; Lalić, D. Overcoming digital divides in higher education: Digital literacy beyond Facebook. N Media Soc; 2015; 17,
Recabarren, M; Corvalán, B; Villegas, M. Exploring the differences between gamer and non-gamer students in the effects of gamification on their motivation and learning. Interact Learn Environ; 2021; 31,
Rosyid, HA; Palmerlee, M; Chen, K. Deploying learning materials to game content for serious education game development: a case study. Entertain Comput; 2018; 26, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2018.01.001]
Sailer, M; Homner, L. The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Rev; 2020; 32,
Sawyer, RK. Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: a systematic literature review. Educ Res Rev; 2017; 22, pp. 99-113.
Smiderle, R; Rigo, SJ; Marques, LB et al. The impact of gamification on students’ learning, engagement and behavior based on their personality traits. Smart Learn Environ; 2020; 7,
Sánchez-Mena, A; Martí-Parreño, J; Aldás-Manzano, J. Teachers’ intention to use educational video games: the moderating role of gender and age. Innov Educ Teach Int; 2019; 56,
Soomro, KA; Kale, U; Curtis, R et al. Digital divide among higher education faculty. Int J Educ Technol High Educ; 2020; 17,
Spronken-Smith, RA; Walker, R; Dickinson, KJM et al. Redesigning a curriculum for inquiry: an ecology case study. Instructional Sci; 2011; 39,
Stott A, Neustaedter C (2013) Analysis of gamification in education. Available at: http://clab.iat.sfu.ca/pubs/Stott-Gamification.pdf
Strmečki, D; Bernik, A; Radošević, D. Gamification in E-learning: introducing gamified design elements into E-learning systems. J Comput Sci; 2016; 11,
Tovey M (2016) Design pedagogy: developments in art and design education. Taylor & Francis
Tucker, R; Abbasi, N. Bad attitudes: why design students dislike teamwork. J Learn Des; 2016; 9,
Valdez VB, Javier SP (2021) Digital divide: from a peripheral to a core issue for all SDGs. In: Leal Filho W, Marisa Azul A, Brandli L et al. (eds) Reduced inequalities. Springer International Publishing, Cham. pp. 88–101
Yildirim, I. The effects of gamification-based teaching practices on student achievement and students’ attitudes toward lessons. Internet High Educ; 2017; 33, pp. 86-92.
Yıldırım, İ; Şen, S. The effects of gamification on students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis study. Interact Learn Environ; 2019; 29,
Zainuddin, Z; Chu, SKW; Shujahat, M et al. The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educ Res Rev; 2020; 30, 100326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326]
Zainuddin, Z; Keumala, CM. Gamification concept without digital platforms: a strategy for parents on motivating children study at home during Covid-19 pandemic. PEDAGOGIK: J Pendidik; 2021; 8,
Zhonggen, Y. A meta-analysis of use of serious games in education over a decade. Int J Comput Games Technol; 2019; 2019,
Zichermann G, Cunningham C (2011) Gamification by design: implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. O’Reilly Media
Copyright Palgrave Macmillan Dec 2025