Mohib ULLAH, Sareer Ul AMIN, Muhammad Munsif, Utkurbek SAFAEV, Habib KHAN, Salman Khan, Habib ULLAH. Serious games in science education: a systematic literature review. Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware, 2022, 4(3): 189—209. DOI: 10.1016/j.vrih.2022.02.001

This literature review investigates the role of serious games in science education from 2011 to 2021 categorized into five types: training, inquiry, professional simulation (epistemic), embodied system, and research collaboration games. The authors highlight several educational benefits, including improved learner motivation, knowledge acquisition, and development of key competencies such as critical thinking, collaboration, and problem-solving. When complex or abstract scientific ideas are presented in an interactive game environment, especially using simulations and augmented reality (AR), students are more likely to engage meaningfully with the content. AR in particular is noted for enhancing learning experiences through added layers of visual information, interactivity, and real-world contextualisation.

However, the review finds that a majority of the serious games developed are single-player, focused predominantly on physics and biology, and targeted at elementary and junior high school students. Most studies reviewed were conducted in high-income countries, with limited evidence emerging from developing contexts. Teachers responded positively to the technological affordances of games but expressed concerns about weak content design, lack of effective feedback or reward systems, and poor animation quality in some cases.

Critically, while the review identifies general trends and affirms the potential of serious games, its findings are not entirely conclusive. The research scope is broad, and the lack of specificity around learner demographics, curricula, or national contexts limits its applicability. Furthermore, descriptions of learning outcomes are vague and self-evident, relying on terms such as “enhanced learning” or “increased engagement” without explaining how these were defined or measured. A clearer framework for evaluating the effectiveness of serious games would strengthen the paper’s contribution to the field. The lack of longitudinal research also limits insights into the sustained impact of serious games over time.

Martin, W., Silander, M., & Rutter, S. (2019). Digital Games as sources for science analogies: Learning about energy through play. Computers & Education, 130, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.002

This study examines whether digital science games, when paired with analogy mapping instruction, improve middle school students’ understanding of scientific concepts related to energy transfer. Researchers compared two groups: a treatment group that received instructional scaffolds for mapping game analogies to science concepts, and a comparison group that used the same games but with general instructional support. The analogy mapping techniques involved visual comparisons, spatial cues, hand gestures, and post-game discussions linking game mechanics to scientific ideas.

Games were created to support learning about electricity, photosynthesis, and heat transfer. The electricity game showed the strongest results, with the treatment group significantly outperforming the comparison group on assessments of electricity and broader energy transfer. Students in the treatment group also made six times as many references to analogies during instruction. However, there were no significant gains for heat transfer or photosynthesis concepts, suggesting that the success of analogy-based transfer may depend on game design or conceptual fit.

The study has several notable limitations. It is difficult to compare the quality of the games used and each game may have skewed results, as the electricity game appeared more engaging and well-designed than the others. Additionally, while students were given exit tickets, the lack of richer qualitative data limits understanding of how or why the analogy mapping worked. The small, self-selected sample and lack of a no-game control group also reduce the strength of the conclusions. Multiple variables, such as game design, prior knowledge, and understanding of analogies, make it difficult to isolate effects of the treatment. Finally, multiple-choice assessments may not fully capture students’ conceptual reasoning. Nonetheless, the study offers promising evidence that structured analogy mapping can enhance the educational value of digital science games.2