Cited by 1,864Educational Games and GamificationDigital Games and MediaVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games.

Wouters, Pieter, van Nimwegen, Christof, van Oostendorp, Herre, van der Spek, Erik D.·2013·Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

It is assumed that serious games influences learning in 2 ways, by changing cognitive processes and by affecting motivation. However, until now research has shown little evidence for these assumptions. We used meta-analytic techniques to investigate whether serious games are more effective in terms of learning and more motivating than conventional instruction methods (learning: k = 77, N 5,547; motivation: k = 31, N 2,216). Consistent with our hypotheses, serious games were found to be more effective in terms of learning (d= 0.29, p <.01) and retention (d = 0.36, p <.01), but they were not more motivating (d = 0.26, p > .05) than conventional instruction methods. Additional moderator analyses on the learning effects revealed that learners in serious games learned more, relative to those taught with conventional instruction methods, when the game was supplemented with other instruction methods, when multiple training sessions were involved, and when players worked in groups.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0031311

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Randomly assigning learners to experimental conditions allows researchers to rule out alternative explanations for differences in learning outcomes between different conditions.

    “Randomly assigning learners to experimental conditions allows researchers to rule out alternative explanations for differences in learning outcomes between different conditions.”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Wouters et al. 2013

  • Quasi-experimental studies do not allow alternative explanations to be ruled out.

    “However, quasi-experimental studies do not allow alternative explanations to be ruled out (Wouters et al. 2013;Sitzmann 2011).”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Wouters et al. 2013

  • Findings from the context of games have shown that collaborative gameplay can be more effective than individual gameplay.

    “Findings from the context of games have shown that collaborative gameplay can be more effective than individual gameplay (Wouters et al. 2013).”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Wouters et al. 2013

  • Research in the context of games has indicated that the effects of games are larger when players engage in multiple sessions and thus play over longer periods of time.

    “On the other hand, research in the context of games has indicated that the effects of games are larger when players engage in multiple sessions and thus play over longer periods of time (Wouters et al. 2013).”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Wouters et al. 2013

  • Meta-analytic methods allow for a synthesis of studies using different designs and instruments, and the degree of methodological rigor can vary between primary studies and thus jeopardize the conclusions drawn from meta-analyses.

    “As meta-analytic methods allow for a synthesis of studies using different designs and instruments, the degree of methodological rigor can vary between primary studies and thus jeopardize the conclusions drawn from meta-analyses (Wouters et al. 2013).”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Wouters et al. 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D.
Affiliations
Utrecht University (NL)
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
2013-05
Volume
105
Issue
2
Pages
249-265
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W2127076710
Cited by
1,864
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 184 · 2025: 179 · 2024: 160 · 2023: 138 · 2022: 163 · 2021: 169 · 2020: 145 · 2019: 178 · 2018: 153 · 2017: 125 · 2016: 112 · 2015: 87 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 1
FWCI
23.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (411-10-902)
  • Netherlands ICT Research and Innovation Authority
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
serious games, game-based learning, learning outcomes, student motivation, knowledge retention, conventional instruction comparison, game-based instruction, group learning, training sessions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review