CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,274Educational Games and GamificationDigital Games and MediaVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Digital Games, Design, and Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Clark, Douglas B., Tanner-Smith, Emily E., Killingsworth, Stephen S.·2016·Review of Educational Research
DOI 10.3102/0034654315582065PMC PMC4748544
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this meta-analysis, we systematically reviewed research on digital games and learning for K–16 students. We synthesized comparisons of game versus nongame conditions (i.e., media comparisons) and comparisons of augmented games versus standard game designs (i.e., value-added comparisons). We used random-effects meta-regression models with robust variance estimates to summarize overall effects and explore potential moderator effects. Results from media comparisons indicated that digital games significantly enhanced student learning relative to nongame conditions ([Formula: see text] = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [0.19, 0.48], k = 57, n = 209). Results from value-added comparisons indicated significant learning benefits associated with augmented game designs ([Formula: see text] = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [0.17, 0.51], k = 20, n = 40). Moderator analyses demonstrated that effects varied across various game mechanics characteristics, visual and narrative characteristics, and research quality characteristics. Taken together, the results highlight the affordances of games for learning as well as the key role of design beyond medium.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/0034654315582065

Cites

145 of 145 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Inclusion of game fiction is closely related to the use of narrative anchors and has been shown to be effective for learning as it situates and anchors learning in a context and can serve as a cognitive framework for problem solving.

    “Inclusion of game fiction is closely related to the use of narrative anchors and has been shown to be effective for learning as it situates and anchors learning in a context (Clark et al. 2016) and can further serve as a cognitive framework for problem solving (Dickey 2006).”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Clark et al. 2016

    The ‘Moderator Analyses of Visual and Narrative Game Characteristics’ section says prior research supports narrative context as a way to situate and anchor learning. But the Discussion reports a small negative relationship between the paper’s aggregate contextualization measure and learning gains, so this paper does not establish that including game fiction is effective for learning. The cognitive-framework clause is cited to Dickey (2006), not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The power of games can be transferred to non-game contexts by using game design elements.

    “In addition, the results of the summary effect analyses were similar to results from meta-analyses conducted in the context of games (see Clark et al. 2016;Wouters et al. 2013), indicating that the power of games can be transferred to non-game contexts by using game design elements.”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Clark et al. 2016

    The Results, under “Sophistication of Mechanics,” report improved learning outcomes for schoollike tasks with points or badges added, and the Discussion says simple gamification can improve certain types of learning outcomes. This supports transferring some benefits of game design to academic tasks, but not the broader claim about the power of games in non-game contexts generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The result for behavioral learning outcomes is in line with evidence from games that combinations of competition and collaboration are promising for learning.

    “This result for behavioral learning outcomes is in line with evidence from the context of games, showing that combinations of competition and collaboration in games are promising for learning (Clark et al. 2016).”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Clark et al. 2016

    The Results (Moderator Analyses of General Study Characteristics; page unavailable) report that games combining collaboration and team competition produced larger learning effects than single-player competitive games. But noncompetitive single-player games performed better than collaborative team competitions and were the only player-configuration group with significant learning gains. The source therefore supports a relative advantage, not an unqualified finding that the combination improves learning. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Clark et al. (2016) found that combinations of competition and collaboration as well as single-player games without competitive elements can outperform games with mere competition.

    “Clark et al. (2016) included competition in their meta-analysis on digital games and found that combinations of competition and collaboration as well as single-player games without competitive elements can outperform games with mere competition.”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Clark et al. 2016

  • Reviews have documented the effects on students' learning outcomes and the key role of gamified designs.

    “The reviews have also documented the effects on students' learning outcomes and the key role of gamified designs (Alsawaier, 2018;Clark, Tanner-Smith & Killingsworth 2016).”

    From Towards a motivational design? Connecting gamification user types and online learning activities (2020) · cites this paper as Clark, Tanner-Smith & Killingsworth 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 146 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Vanderbilt University
ORCID
Venue
Review of Educational Research
Publisher
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Published
2016-03
Volume
86
Issue
1
Pages
79-122
ISSN
  • 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1046
DOI
10.3102/0034654315582065
PMC
PMC4748544
OpenAlex
W2099460238
Cited by
1,274
References
146
Citations by year
2026: 159 · 2025: 129 · 2024: 126 · 2023: 120 · 2022: 125 · 2021: 163 · 2020: 125 · 2019: 122 · 2018: 103 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 14 · 2013: 1
FWCI
169.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
video games, game-based learning, educational game design, game mechanics, game affordances, learning outcomes, K-16 education

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