Cited by 524Educational Games and GamificationInnovative Teaching Methodologies in Social SciencesManagement and Marketing Education

Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes: Review and Research Proposals

Wilson, Katherine A., Bedwell, Wendy L., Lazzara, Elizabeth H., Salas, Eduardo, Burke, C. Shawn, Estock, Jamie L., Orvis, Kara L., Conkey, Curtis·2009·Simulation & Gaming

Abstract

Games are an effective and cost-saving method in education and training. Although much is known about games and learning in general, little is known about what components of these games (i.e., game attributes) influence learning outcomes. The purpose of this article is threefold. First, we review the literature to understand the “state of play” in the literature in regards to learning outcomes and game attributes—what is being studied. Second, we seek out what specific game attributes have an impact on learning outcomes. Finally, where gaps in the research exist, we develop a number of theoretically based proposals to guide further research in this area.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1046878108321866

Cites

95 of 95 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?

  • For games, dynamic tailoring has been recommended based on difficulty level to ensure flow and optimal challenge.

    “For games, dynamic tailoring has been recommended based on the difficulty level the player can master (e.g. via providing hints when the challenge is too hard), to ensure flow and to provide all players with an optimal level of challenge (Charles et al. 2005;Wilson et al. 2009).”

    From A meta-analysis of serious digital games for healthy lifestyle promotion (2014) · cites this paper as Wilson et al. 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilson, K. A., Bedwell, W. L., Lazzara, E. H., Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Estock, J. L., Orvis, K. L., & Conkey, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • University of Central Florida, USA,
  • Aptima (United States) (US)
  • Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (US)
Venue
Simulation & Gaming
Published
2008-05-07
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
217-266
ISSN
  • 1046-8781 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-826X
OpenAlex
W2139932812
Cited by
524
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 35
FWCI
24.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Simulation & Gaming (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methodologies in Social Sciences
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Management and Marketing Education
Keywords
game attributes, learning outcomes, serious games, game-based learning, game design, training games

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