The DOI matches its Crossref record; 145 of the 146 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Digital Games, Design, and Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
![Figure 2. Scatter plot of pretest-adjusted posttest effect sizes and overall contextualization aggregate score for digital game versus nongame conditions (media comparisons). Note. Each effect size shown proportionate to its weight in the meta-analysis. Slope coefficient from meta-regression with robust variance estimation b = −0.07 (p = .01, 95% CI [−0.12, −0.01]).](/paper-figures/308463f1df4b46ffa9b948a3ff86b75a/digital-games-design-and-learning-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-figure-2.jpg)
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158 · Cited by 46,835
Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x018001032 · Cited by 13,645
David, F. N., & Tukey, J. W. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529486 · Cited by 12,707
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy
(2004) · Education + Training · doi:10.1108/et.2004.00446dae.002 · Cited by 6,674
Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators
Hedges, L. V. (1981) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164588 · Cited by 5,695
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
Self-Efficacy and Academic Motivation
Schunk, D. H. (1991) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653133 · Cited by 4,292
Pintrich, P. R. (2003) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667 · Cited by 3,459
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Gleser L. J., 2009, The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 357
- 10.3102/10769986006002107 · DOI · Paper page
- Hedges L. V., 2007, Journal of Research in Rural Education, 22, 1
- López-López J. A., 2015, Assessing meta-regression models for examining moderator relationships with dependent effect sizes: A Monte Carlo simulation
- López-López J. A., 2010, Paper presented at the 5th annual meeting of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology
- Raudenbush S. W., 2009, The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 295
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning
Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2017) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007 · Cited by 1,727
The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w · Cited by 2,594
Meta-analysis of action video game impact on perceptual, attentional, and cognitive skills.
Bediou, B., Adams, D. M., Mayer, R. E., Tipton, E., Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000130 · Cited by 807
The effect of games and simulations on higher education: a systematic literature review
Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2017) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-017-0062-1 · Cited by 776
Serious gaming and gamification education in health professions: systematic review
Gentry, S. V., Gauthier, A., L’Estrade Ehrstrom, B., Wortley, D., Lilienthal, A., Tudor Car, L., Dauwels-Okutsu, S., Nikolaou, C. K., Zary, N., Campbell, J., et al. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/12994 · Cited by 648
Metadata
- Authors
- Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Vanderbilt University
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Published
- 2016-03
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 79-122
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1046
- 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
- FWCI
- 169.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
