Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Games and Game-Based Learning in Instructional Design
Games and Game-Based Learning in Instructional Design
Games and Game-Based Learning in Instructional Design
net/publication/311266559
CITATIONS READS
0 1,282
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Sam von Gillern on 30 August 2017.
This is the initial submission version of the article that was later published in
Abstract
This paper highlights the value of games and game-based learning as a tool for
instructional design. In education, games can promote motivation, engagement, and learning,
which presents an appeal for the use of games in instructional design. This article begins by
exploring relevant literature related to games, game-based learning, and instructional design. It
then examines both digital and non-digital games as useful mechanisms for promoting student
engagement and learning, and provides an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of digital and
non-digital games in education. Finally, implications and directions for future research are
proposed.
Introduction
Game-based learning has become an important focus for many scholars in recent years
(Prensky, 2005; Russell & Laffey, 2016). Many scholars recognize that games can promote
motivation, engagement, and learning (Gee, 2007; McGonigal, 2011; Sheldon, 2011). Given this,
games and game-based learning have significant implications for instructional design. As
researchers and educators, we care about students’ experiences and learning, which is a primary
reason for the increased focus on games in education in recent years, as games are often exciting
This aligns well with Keller’s (1987) classic ARCS Model of Instructional Design, which
experiences. Games command the attention of players of all ages. Teachers can design and
incorporate games that are relevant to their educational goals. Students can develop confidence
through repeatedly practicing key skills during gameplay. People who play games generally get
satisfaction from gameplay, which is a reason for the widespread popularity of games and a
reason people continue to play throughout their lives (Entertainment Software Association,
2015).
Scholars have recognized the connections between instructional design and game-based
learning. In a recent article, Author (2015) suggested a framework that connects instructional
design to game-based learning. In this perspective, the development of learning goals and
assessments in instructional design can guide the creation and selection of games that are
This article expands on existing ideas in the field and illustrates the value of games and
game-based learning in education and instructional design. Additionally, this article provides
insight about both the use of digital and non-digital games as tools in instructional design and
examines their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, implications for game-based learning in
instructional design are discussed and directions for future research are proposed.
A variety of scholars have explored the roles of games in learning and education. Piaget
(1962) and Vygotsky (1978) pioneered the study of play and games and their value in children’s
development and learning. Non-digital games can be played in a variety of disciplines and
educational contexts (Kamii & Devries, 1980; Zuckerman and Horn, 1973). More recently, in
tandem with a revolution of digital technology and computers, scholars have investigated how
digital games can promote learning (Gee, 2007; Lynch, R., Mallon, B., & Connolly, 2015;
Malone (1980) posits that a game's ability to create an intrinsic factor of motivation is the
key behind their success in teaching without teaching. While Malone primarily focuses on
instructional computer games, his gaming elements (challenge, fantasy and curiosity) can be
used in a variety of educational settings with both digital and non-digital games to achieve fun in
learning. Scholars such as McGonigal (2011) and Prensky (2005) also recognize the value of
games in learning and education in that they can promote motivation and engagement, two
While both digital and non-digital games can promote learning and engagement, there
has been a greater focus in recent years on digital games due to a few primary factors:
increased popularity and investment in games (Van Eck, 2006). This focus is understandable as
new digital games are created frequently and offer an array of benefits to educators and students
alike. Nonetheless, it is also important to recognize the value of non-digital games in offering
significant benefits to educators and students. As both non-digital games and digital games are
useful tools for educators and those interested in instructional design, we examine each in more
People have been playing with and learning from games long before the personal
computers (Avedon & Sutton-Smith, 1971; Juul, 2011). Learning is an inherent component of
games and the instructional design process. In order to improve one’s performance during
gameplay, one must learn through his or her game experiences. More experienced players are
typically more skilled than less experienced players, because they have learned skills and
strategies that, when implemented, improve their overall performance. This is true both when
games are played in recreational or academic settings. For example, when playing games ranging
from chess to basketball to billiards, people learn both from specific instruction and strategies,
from other players and coaches, as well as from their their own experiences, experimentation,
and actions.
promote learning in a variety of disciplines for many years (Author, 2016; Kamii & DeVries,
1980; Zuckerman & Horn, 1973). A likely reason for teachers to include games in education
through their instructional design is that educators recognize that their students enjoy playing
games, which influences their attention and satisfaction with the activities, aligning with the
ARCS model (Keller, 1987). Therefore, when the curricular content can be presented through
GAMES AND GAME-BASED LEARNING IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 5
gameplay, students can learn while having fun. While the types of games in education vary
considerably, depending on the teacher, students, and discipline, games have the ability to
and weaknesses of a specific approach, and games are no exception. So, let’s examine some of
Strengths. One of the primary benefits of using non-digital games in education is that
such games are highly customizable, which enables teachers to align games with relevant content
and learning goals (Keller, 1987). Whether incorporating a game of Jeopardy, a race track board
game, or a role-playing game, teachers can customize the content, questions, and gameplay to
align with their discipline, students, and educational goals. A first grade reading lesson will
obviously incorporate different types of games when compared to a fifth grade science classroom
or a high-school social studies activity. With non-digital games, teachers can customize and
create games with their discipline, students, and educational goals in mind, which will directly
impact the students’ experiences and learning. Additionally, this customizability can allow
teachers to create games in which students have choice during gameplay while providing tasks of
Another benefit of incorporating non-digital games is that teachers are not restricted by
technologies such as computers, iPads, and software packages. With a little creativity, planning,
and some basic non-digital technologies, such as pencils, paper, markers, whiteboards, and the
physical classroom space, teachers can create a wide variety of engaging games to promote
GAMES AND GAME-BASED LEARNING IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 6
student learning. For example, reading teachers can create word study games, including racetrack
games, bingo, and memory, to help their students learn about word families, vowel patterns, or
affixes. An economics teacher can create a game that simulates decision-making with scarce
Finally, non-digital games, particularly when compared to digital games, are great for
promoting face-to-face interaction during gameplay, which can facilitate the development of
important social skills and learning. Digital games often require players to look at computer
screens for extended periods of time, but non-digital games often incorporate verbal interaction,
eye-contact, and body language, which are valuable social skills to be developed in conjunction
Weaknesses. It’s not secret that teachers are busy people. Teaching, brainstorming,
lesson-planning, and grading take up a great deal of time, and a primary drawback of
incorporating non-digital games in education is that they can be labor intensive. It can be a
demanding process to decide which games to use and create based on the available resources, the
students’ interests and levels of development, and the skills and concepts to be taught. This may
require even extra effort from teachers who are not used to incorporating games as part of their
instructional design. However, given that lesson planning can be quite consuming anyways,
reframing one’s activities, concepts, and skills as games may not always require more effort than
teaching the same ideas without games, particularly once a teacher figures out what works best
Another drawback of non-digital games is that many of them are paper-based, and the
accompanying resources, such as print-outs, game boards, and game cards can be damaged or
lost, which results in a need for replacement. Keeping game materials organized and in good
GAMES AND GAME-BASED LEARNING IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 7
shape can be a challenge when they are regularly handled by 25 to 100 children. Ultimately,
though, while non-digital games often need to be maintained and/or reproduced over time, the
benefits they can confer often outweigh such a cost. While non-digital games offer educators
numerous possibilities to promote learning, engagement, and fun, digital games also have much
Digital game-based learning can be defined as the meaningful use of digital technological
environment to enhance student learning through increasing student motivation and engagement
(Kapp, 2012; Prensky, 2005). The success and spread of the gaming industry contributed to
and higher education (Squire & Jenkins, 2003). Digital games have become very accessible, easy
to use, and fun. Therefore, educators have been using them to facilitate learning concepts and
skills that were either too time consuming or rather disengaging for students (Ebner, &
Holzinger, 2007; Huizenga, Admiraal, Akkerman,& Dam, 2009). Other educators have
approached game-based learning by developing classes and instructional activities that simulate
a gaming structure.
Digital game-based learning, when used appropriately, can provide students and
educators with a long list of affordances. Kapp (2012) suggests that a survey of research shows
that digital game-based learning often facilitates better attitudes towards learning, increases
impacts decision-making processes, and aides students learning achievement, and these
affordances align well with the four elements of the ARCS instructional design model (Keller,
GAMES AND GAME-BASED LEARNING IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 8
1987). Game-based learning can grab and sustain student attention through strategies such as
encouraging participation and interaction (Keller, 1987, p. 4). The ability of game-based learning
to influence students real-life perceptions ensures relevancy of their learning by using analogies
that are familiar to learners’ past experiences (Keller, 1987, p.4), while continuous decisions
making points in the organized levels of a game increases student self confidence (Keller, 1987,
p. 5). The rewarding aspect of game-based learning provides a sense of satisfaction for students
by reinforcing their intrinsic and extrinsic pride when they accomplish a difficult task (Keller,
1987, p. 5).
While games as instructional design tools can be helpful for promoting learning, the lack
of a singular definition of digital game-based learning results in using many different ways of
incorporating digital games into the learning process. In the following sections, we address the
strengths and weaknesses of digital game-based learning approaches with two primary
perspectives: the use of readily available digital games for learning purposes, and the design of
where the whole is more important than the individual parts (Gee, 2007; Senge and Fulmer,
1993). More specifically, digital game-based learning provides learners of diverse abilities and
needs with opportunities to deeply experience enjoyable learning. Additionally, digital game-
based learning allows instructors to reach a comfortable medium where today’s learners can
engage and become educated in a manner that fits their learning processes and speaks their
language (Prensky and Berry, 2001). Through game-based learning, a higher instructional value
GAMES AND GAME-BASED LEARNING IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 9
of educational activities is achieved when students can experience learning that is personally
According to Griffiths (2003), educational video games can be used to help children with
attention and impulsive disorders to gain social, instructional and organizational benefits. Well
designed games can also provide authentic learning opportunities (Floyd, 2008) which can add to
through digital tools can facilitate situated learning in instructional settings (Herrington and
Oliver, 2000). Additionally, non-educational commercial games have been shown to promote
acquisition, a process influenced by both game features and content as well as player motivation
and engagement (Peterson, 2013; Squire, 2011; Steinkuhler, 2007).While digital game-based
learning can be a valuable instructional approach, it also has its weaknesses, to which we turn
next.
Weaknesses. Digital game-based learning, as any other learning approach, has its
weaknesses. Instructors need to be cautious when using digital game-based learning as to not
overlook opportunities to apply learning in real life contexts. Digital game-based learning can be
a valuable approach to simulate real life applications when actual involvement in real life
activities is not possible or feasible, but it does not necessarily replace physical involvement. For
example, students in a science class can use actual seeds and small planter to understand the
different phases of a plant life in real time rather than use a digital game-based application to
convey the same simple concept. Also, instructors need to be aware of the extra time that they
need to invest in preparing for a digital game-based learning class, and familiarizing students
with programs and technology needed for a specific digital game (Becker, 2007). Moreover,
GAMES AND GAME-BASED LEARNING IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 10
This prevents the creation of standard assessment and evaluation tools to measure the
When using readily available digital games, instructors often have little to no
customizability of the game narrative, structure, or other elements. This forces instructors to
modify their own instruction to flow better with the digital game used or to use it as only a
supplementary learning mechanism. Even when instructors design their courses in game formats
or structures, they run into the inflexibility of the learning management systems adopted by the
institute, or lack of resources to sustain the growing complexity of the course design.
Additionally, many digital gaming applications require learners to sit at devices for long periods
of time, often with limited face-to-face interaction with other students. In our current society, this
can contribute to the growing problems of childhood obesity (He, Piche, Beynon, & Harris,
2010). Finally, digital games and the devices needed to play them, can be expensive, which can
limit availability. However, while digital game-based instruction has its weaknesses, its
opportunities for promoting motivation, engagement, and learning should not be overlooked, and
thus, like all instructional approaches, the incorporation of digital game-based learning
approaches should be influenced by educational goals, student needs, and available resources.
People learn from both digital and non-digital games. Both types of game-based learning
engagement, and learning. Hence, game-based learning aligns well with many aims of
instructional design. This article illustrated the value of digital and non-digital game-based
GAMES AND GAME-BASED LEARNING IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 11
learning and their respective educational affordances to help those in instructional design
While much is known about the uses and benefits of games in education, there is still
much to learn. It is important that future research continues to explore how both digital and non-
digital games can support teaching and learning. More specifically, empirical research that
compares digital and non-digital game-based learning along with non-game-based learning in a
variety of contexts would likely be valuable. Such research can illuminate the strengths and
weaknesses of digital and non-digital games in learning environments and reveal how different
people respond to and interact with digital and nondigital games given their varying contexts and
resources.
People, contexts, and resources will ultimately influence the possibilities and success of
games in learning environments. Different goals, preferences, and resources will certainly make
non-digital games stronger candidates than digital games for accomplishing particular
educational goals in particular contexts. Conversely, digital-games will promote deeper learning
than non-digital games in other situations. Further research should investigate how digital and
non-digital games can be complementary and how they can both be used to support instructional
design and deep learning. In order for game-based learning to realize its fullest potential, both
digital and non-digital games need to be examined by researchers and included by educators in
References
Author (2015).
Author (2016).
Avedon, E., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1971). The study of games. New York, New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Becker, K. (2007). Digital game-based learning once removed: Teaching teachers. British
Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Ge, X., & Miller, R.(2014). An Investigation of the
Floyd, D. (2008) Video Games and Learning. Retrieved January 04, 2016, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN0qRKjfX3s
Griffiths, M. (2003). The therapeutic use of videogames in childhood and adolescence. Clinical
He, M., Piché, L., Beynon, C., & Harris, S. (2010). Screen-related sedentary behaviors:
Huizenga, J., Admiraal, W., Akkerman, S., & Dam, G. T. (2009). Mobile game-based learning in
Hwang, G. J., Yang, L. H., & Wang, S. Y. (2013). A concept map-embedded educational
computer game for improving students' learning performance in natural science courses.
Hwang, G. J., Chiu, L. Y., & Chen, C. H. (2015). A contextual game-based learning approach to
Kamii, C. & DeVries, R. (1980) Group games in early education: Implications of Piaget’s
theory. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and
Lynch, R., Mallon, B., & Connolly, C. (2015). The Pedagogical Application of Alternate Reality
Malone (1980). What makes things fun to learn? Heuristics for designing instructional computer
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change
Miller, A., Christensen, E. M., Eather, N., Sproule, J., Annis-Brown, L., & Lubans, D. R. (2015).
74, 1-8.
O'Neil, H. F., Wainess, R., & Baker, E. L. (2005). Classification of learning outcomes: Evidence
from the computer games literature. The Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 455-474.
GAMES AND GAME-BASED LEARNING IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 14
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: Norton.
Peterson, M. (2013). Computer games and language learning. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Prensky, M., & Berry, B. D. (2001). Do they really think differently. On the horizon, 9(6), 1-9.
Prensky, M. (2005). Computer games and learning: Digital game-based learning. In J. Raessens
& J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of Computer Game Studies (pp. 97-122). Cambridge,
Russell, D., & Laffey, J. M. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of Research on Gaming Trends in P-12
Senge, P. M., & Fulmer, R. M. (1993). Simulations, systems thinking and anticipatory learning.
Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2003). Harnessing the power of games in education. Insight, 3(1), 5-
33.
Squire, K. (2011). Video Games and Learning: Teaching and Participatory Culture in the
NY.
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It's not just the digital natives who are restless.
Zuckerman, D. W., & Horn, R. E. (1973). The guide to simulations/games for education and