View PDF Version
 
DOI: 10.1039/D5RP00248F (Review Article) Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, Advance Article

A systematic literature review of game-based approaches in chemistry education (2014–2024)

Sule Elmali *a, Luzia Freund b and Rüdiger Tiemann c
aFaculty of Education, Sakarya University, Sakarya, 54300, Turkey. E-mail: suleelmali@sakarya.edu.tr
bEmmy-Noether-Gymnasium, Pablo-Neruda-Straße 6-7, Berlin, 12559, Germany. E-mail: luzia.freund@schule.berlin.de
cChemistry Education Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, 12489, Germany. E-mail: ruediger.tiemann@hu-berlin.de

Received 7th July 2025 , Accepted 26th October 2025

First published on 28th October 2025

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the use and impact of game-based approaches in secondary school chemistry education between 2014 and 2024. More specifically, it examines the impact of gamification, game-based learning, and serious games on student academic achievement, motivation, and engagement. Based on defined inclusion criteria, 52 peer-reviewed studies were identified through a structured database search. In the past decade, there has been a significant increase in research interest in this area. In a study of three approaches, game-based learning was the most commonly employed method. The three methods, game-based learning, gamification, and serious games, were found to have a positive impact on student outcomes, particularly in terms of motivation and engagement. Furthermore, positive effects were observed on learning outcomes, especially among students with lower prior knowledge or lower academic performance. This review provides an overview of recent research on game-based learning in chemistry education and highlights its growing relevance. In the future, researchers should investigate additional variables, such as self-efficacy, emotional responses, and problem-solving skills, and investigate how different student populations may benefit from game-based strategies. Practical implications for educators are also discussed, emphasizing the need for well-planned and context-sensitive implementation in the classroom.

Introduction

Chemistry is frequently perceived as one of the most challenging subjects within science education due to the abstract nature of its core concepts. This inherent complexity often renders chemistry difficult, less appealing, and susceptible to conceptual misunderstandings among students (Lay and Osman, 2018). Consequently, chemistry teachers may encounter significant challenges in fulfilling their instructional responsibilities, particularly when confronted with students’ low academic performance, lack of motivation, or negative attitudes towards the subject (Demircioğlu, 2012; Fatimah and Hidayah, 2021; Shiddiqi and Setiyawan, 2024).

In order to cope with these challenges, research on game-based approaches in education has increased significantly in recent years (Subhash and Cudney, 2018; Zhonggen, 2019; Swacha, 2021).

When game-based approaches are examined in the educational context literature, terms such as game-based learning (GBL), gamification and serious games often come to the fore (Martí-Parreño et al., 2016; Almeida and Simoes, 2019; Zohari et al., 2023). The increasing importance and usage of these concepts in learning contexts are evident. However, despite their general acceptance, there is still confusion in distinguishing among serious games, educational games, game-based learning, and gamification (Becker, 2021). For instance, Tsai and Tsai (2020) describe that digital games designed for academic learning usually have been labelled as ‘educational games’ or ‘serious games’.

Although they are different from each other in nature, these terms are sometimes used interchangeably, making it difficult to compare and interpret findings across studies.

Game based learning (GBL) refers to the use of games in educational contexts as a part of learning objectives (Wiggins, 2016). GBL has an impact on students’ achievement, motivation and engagement (Lay and Osman, 2018; Srisawasdi and Panjaburee, 2019; Khoo et al., 2025). Furthermore, GBL improved students’ argumentation skills in lessons (Noroozi et al., 2020). Besides, many higher order thinking skills such as reflective thinking, creative thinking, computational thinking, design thinking, problem-solving skills (Khoo et al., 2025) and cognitive investment were affected positively.

Gamification is a way to use game elements to learn but without the entertainment value (Karagiorgasand Niemann, 2017). Gamification studies have shown that gamification positively affects students’ academic achievement, motivation, and classroom engagement (Lampropoulos et al., 2022; Alahmari et al., 2023) and scientific processes (Fleischmann and Ariel, 2016). Moreover, gamification enhances student participation, motivation, and enjoyment in the learning process (Plass et al., 2015; Subhash and Cudney, 2018). These positive effects have been observed across all educational levels, from elementary to higher education (Manzano-León et al., 2021). More specifically, gamification in science education has garnered growing interest, resulting in an increasing number of studies in the field (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021; Alahmari et al., 2023). However, in underrepresented science disciplines like chemistry, conducting more research is especially critical to understand the impact of gamification (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021).

The term “serious” in serious games refers to conveying knowledge, skills, or content to the player; it signifies the player's exposure to an environment rich in knowledge or experiences (Laamarti et al., 2014). In serious games, learning is affected directly as the instructional content within the application causes learning (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021). Serious games improve students’ engagement towards lessons (Hodges et al., 2018; Bjørner et al., 2021), promoting a multi-sensory style of learning (Papanastasiou et al., 2017). Moreover, Ullah et al. (2022) state that serious games make science lessons easier for learners to understand science content comprehensively.

A comparative study conducted by Zhang and Yu (2022) found that the gamification approach was more effective than the game-based learning approach in terms of learning outcomes. Additionally, although gamification has garnered significant interest, only a small number of studies are grounded in theoretical frameworks (Zainuddin et al., 2020). Alahmari et al. (2023) states that the effects of gamification in various fields of science education should be further investigated. In a meta-analysis conducted by Krath et al. (2021), it was determined that 118 different theories have been used in empirical studies on gamification, serious games, and game-based learning to date. Some theoretical foundations are significantly more popular than others, and the most popular of these (self-determination theory) has been used in 82 different studies such as those by Kalogiannakis et al., 2021; Luarn et al., 2023 followed by studies on flow theory by Oliveira et al., 2021; Kaya and Ercag, 2023 and studies on experiential learning theory by Banfield and Wilkerson, 2014; Alsaqqaf and Li, 2022.

Since all of these terms are closely related, there is confusion between each of them (Becker, 2021). Although these approaches are often used interchangeably, this study analyzes how each approach has been implemented in the chemistry education level over the past decade to illustrate the general landscape of chemistry education. Because, compared to physics or biology, chemistry remains a less-studied subject in terms of game-based applications (Chen et al., 2022). Therefore, more research is needed to better understand which game-based approaches are currently being used in chemistry lessons. By bringing these approaches together under the umbrella term “game-based approaches,” we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of how they impact student academic achievement, motivation, and engagement in chemistry education, as the literature usually investigates the use of approaches such as gamification, serious games, and game-based learning in educational area (Martí-Parreño et al., 2016; Almeida and Simoes, 2019; Zohari et al., 2023).

Furthermore, investigating which game-based approaches are used in chemistry classes and how they affect students’ learning outcomes and motivation may provide valuable insights into how gamification strategies can help address existing instructional challenges in the field. Within this context, the aim of the systematic literature review conducted in this study is to examine the current state of research in this area. The research questions guiding this review are as follows:

1. What game-based approaches are used in secondary school level chemistry education?

2. How do game-based approaches in secondary school level chemistry lessons affect students’ academic achievement?

3. How do game-based approaches in secondary school level chemistry lessons affect students’ motivation and classroom engagement?

Conceptual framework

Among the most frequently used approaches in research on the use of games or game elements in education are game-based learning (GBL), serious games, and gamification (Martí-Parreño et al., 2016; Almeida and Simoes, 2019; Zohari et al., 2023). Similarly, in science courses, various implementations are conducted using these concepts. To understand how game-based approaches influence students’ learning processes, this section aims to provide theoretical explanations related to their key features and to discuss relevant concepts and motivation/learning theories.

Game-based approaches: game-based learning (GBL), gamification, serious games

Game-based learning (GBL). Game-based learning (GBL) is defined as “a learning environment where the game content and gameplay enhance the acquisition of knowledge and skills, and game activities provide players/learners with a sense of achievement through problem-solving and challenges” (Qian and Clark, 2016, p. 51). Thus, through GBL, the topics are taught entirely through games. This differs from gamification, where game elements are integrated into a non-game context (Ceker and Ozdamli, 2017). Game-based approaches are used in diverse areas such as military training, healthcare, engineering, and eSports to develop competencies like technical skills, interpersonal communication, and engagement in learning environments (Griggs et al., 2019). Moreover, education is one of the most common domains for empirical research on gamification (Majuri et al., 2018). However, compared to physics or biology education, the number of studies on GBL in chemistry education is significantly lower (Chen et al., 2022). Moreover, using GBL in chemistry lessons has been shown to positively impact students’ cognitive processes, behaviours, and motivation, offering an effective solution to common educational challenges (Hu et al., 2022). It has been determined that autonomy, a component of self-determination theory, and emotions in GBL created by university students to encourage scientific thinking in STEM fields can affect variables such as students' planning, learning activities, scientific reasoning, and motivation (Bradbury et al., 2017).
Gamification. Gamification is defined as “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding et al., 2011, p. 10). It implies that gamified practices include game elements, but not every implementation can be considered a complete game. Research on gamification has gained increasing attention in recent years (Subhash and Cudney, 2018), with education and learning being among its most common application areas (Majuri et al., 2018). Game-based approaches have been shown to positively affect students’ engagement, motivation, and enjoyment during the learning process (Subhash and Cudney, 2018), as well as their academic achievement (Lampropoulos et al., 2022; Alahmari et al., 2023). Kaya and Ercag (2023) revealed that in a challenge-based gamification program, students in the experimental group had significantly better academic achievement and that the method they used boosted students’ confidence, satisfaction with the course, and overall motivation, consistent with principles of self-determination theory. These positive effects are observed at all levels of education, from primary to higher education (Manzano-León et al., 2021). In science education literature, the most commonly examined game elements are competition, leaderboards, levels, points, and progression (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021). Gamified applications can facilitate students’ understanding of scientific processes (Fleischmann and Ariel, 2016). The most frequently applied theoretical foundation to explain the effectiveness of gamification in science courses is the self-determination theory (Venter, 2020; Jiménez-Valverde et al., 2025). According to Kalogiannakis et al. (2021), some studies also use the Flow Theory or Goal-Setting Theory. Further research is needed to understand the impact of gamification in various fields of science education, especially in underrepresented disciplines like chemistry (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021; Alahmari et al., 2023; Noor, 2024; Crucho et al., 2025).
Serious games. The characteristics of serious games partially overlap with those of game-based learning and digital game-based learning (Baby et al., 2016). Unlike games used solely in GBL, serious games are employed not only in educational settings but also in areas like art and therapy (Breuer and Bente, 2010). Serious games are games used on personal computers or game consoles for educational, simulation, or instructional purposes (Susi et al., 2007). In addition to the basic components found in all games—such as narrative, visuals, and software—serious games also include pedagogical elements, which define their “serious” nature (Zyda, 2005). The main distinction between serious games and traditional games is that prioritize learning and problem-solving over entertainment (Susi et al., 2007). Findings from studies on serious games in science education are consistent with those from general education. Serious games can positively affect learning outcomes, and high school students can benefit significantly from such applications (Riopel et al., 2019). Besides, using serious games in higher education level was found to be an effective and useful pedagogic tool in teaching computer networks (Liarokapis et al., 2010) and improving the quality of learning with problem-based situations in the workplace by using active collaboration (Hummel et al., 2011). Nevertheless, in a study by Kim et al. (2017) for the elementary educational level, a serious game had an important role in developing mathematical understanding and skills and a significant improvement in mathematics fluency on primary education students (Fraga-Varela et al., 2021).
Self-determination theory. Self-determination theory offers a suitable theoretical lens to explain psychological dimensions such as student motivation and engagement. According to Ryan and Deci (2000), motivation can be classified into two types: intrinsic and extrinsic. While extrinsic motivation arises when an activity is performed to achieve an external goal, intrinsic motivation occurs when an activity is undertaken because it is inherently enjoyable or meaningful.

Motivation is also defined as the drive that enables individuals to reach high performance levels and overcome the obstacles to achieve change (Tohidi and Jabbari, 2012). It concerns both the energy and direction underlying actions (Ryan et al., 2019). In addition, there are different types of motivation and they have different effects on students' learning outcomes (Hsieh, 2014). Although motivation is defined as an internal psychological factor, engagement is interpreted as reflecting the individual's involvement in an activity (Martin et al., 2017).

Engagement is defined as participation in educationally effective practices, both inside and outside the classroom, which leads to a range of measurable outcomes (Trowler, 2010). Additionally, it is used as a variable in educational research that aims to understand, explain and predict student behavior in learning environments (Axelson and Flick, 2010).

Game-based practices can influence students' motivation and behaviour through both intrinsic and extrinsic incentives (Landers et al., 2014). External regulation involves performing tasks purely to gain rewards or avoid punishments. Slightly more internalized is introjected regulation, where actions are driven by internal pressures such as guilt or the desire to boost self-esteem. Identified regulation reflects a greater sense of autonomy, as individuals engage in activities, they find personally valuable and integrated regulation, where the behaviour aligns fully with one's values and sense of self (Ryan and Deci, 2000). This theory highlights the potential of game-based approaches to increase intrinsic motivation and explains how students' needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness can be met through gaming. For instance, Bradbury et al. (2017) suggest that autonomy and emotions in the GBL they created for university students to encourage scientific thinking in STEM can affect variables such as learners' planning, learning activities, scientific reasoning, and motivation. Moreover, game elements such as leaderboards can fulfill students' need for competence by showcasing their achievements, and group competitions may satisfy their desire for team-relatedness, while various badge options promote autonomy (Sailer et al., 2017). Self-determination theory has effectively enhanced motivation in gamified contexts which in turn often improves academic performance (Mula-Falcón et al., 2022). Also, research by Kaya and Ercag (2023) on a challenge-based gamification program showed that students in the experimental group had significantly better academic achievement. This method boosted their confidence, satisfaction with the course, and overall motivation, consistent with self-determination theory.

However, there are also some risks associated with using game-based approaches. For instance, ranking systems in learning environments, such as leaderboards, may negatively affect students (Toda et al., 2017). Using external rewards to maintain high motivation levels may carry risks such as reducing the motivation of intrinsically motivated individuals due to gamification or causing the user to focus on their primary task due to striving to achieve the highest score (Nyström, 2021). Another criticism regarding using game-based approaches is excessive use in classrooms, which might cause limited time to complete a particular activity and reduced interactions among students (Khan et al., 2017; Nyström, 2021). The structure of this conceptual framework is designed to support the scope of the research questions. The conceptual distinctions provide a foundation for defining and categorizing the approaches used.

Methodology

This study conducted a systematic literature review to examine how game-based approaches in chemistry education were addressed between 2014 and 2024, specifically focusing on their effects on students’ academic achievement, motivation, and classroom engagement. The purpose of systematic literature reviews is to generate new insights, empirical evidence, and theoretical perspectives (Paré et al., 2015). A systematic review therefore involves the identification of all relevant earlier studies, their critical evaluation, and the synthesis of their findings. In theory, any well-defined research question can be addressed through this method (Pollock and Berge, 2018).

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, allows for a detailed understanding of systematic reviews and is frequently used to help authors transparently report what they did and what they found (Page et al., 2021). The PRISMA approach was chosen for this study because it is widely used in similar studies and is considered a reliable and rigorous approach to ensure valid and transparent analysis of the existing literature (Gundersen and Lampropoulos, 2025).

To structure and present the findings of this systematic review, the PRISMA framework was adopted. The PRISMA framework aims to improve the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Moher et al., 2009). The PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021) provide a standardized methodology for reporting such reviews. The PRISMA flow diagram offers a visual overview of the number of studies identified, screened, excluded, and ultimately included throughout the review process (Harris et al., 2013).

Inclusion criteria

The steps of a systematic review are based on the study's research questions. The review was designed and implemented according to the PRISMA guidelines and a review protocol. Table 1 presents the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to identify eligible studies. Therefore, the inclusion criteria for the studies to be examined were clearly chosen to meet the research questions. This study aimed to examine how game-based approaches have been utilized in secondary school chemistry courses over the last decade, and what their applications are. Furthermore, to ensure standardization, studies not available in English and the study in which new empirical data are not presented were excluded. Moreover, as “Educational Games” concept refers to a wide range and can be used interchangeably, studies that are clearly stated under either “GBL” or “Serious Games” or “Gamification”, depending on their design, were included, while those using the term in a broad or undefined way were excluded.
Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria or contributions
No. Criteria
1 The study must explicitly investigate game-based approaches. This means that terms such as gamification, game-based learning, or serious games must appear at least in the title or abstract, and/or game-based applications must constitute a significant part of the full text.
2 The study must involve participants aged between 10 and 19. This age range should be specified in the title, abstract, or full text.
3 The study must focus exclusively on chemistry education. Even if general terms like Science/STEM/STEAM/MINT education appear in the title or abstract, the full text must demonstrate a clear and direct link to chemistry.
4 The study must be written in English.
5 The publication date must be between 2014 and 2024 (inclusive).
6 The study must not be a review-only paper. Systematic reviews, scoping reviews, literature reviews, meta-analyses, and bibliometric analyses are excluded. However, studies that include both review elements and empirical data are accepted.
7 The study must present new empirical data. Theoretical or historical papers, or those that only summarize previous research findings, are excluded.
8 Only studies that provide clearly documented and assessed quality criteria (e.g., research design, sample size, instruments, data analysis, and bias control methods) are considered.

Search strategy

Based on research questions and inclusion criteria, specific search strings were developed to identify relevant literature. Moreover, in the literature, the terms “motivation” and “engagement” are sometimes used together due to the conceptual overlap between these two concepts. During the database search, these concepts were combined using the operator “OR” to ensure that studies addressing either construct were included in the review. This approach allowed for the inclusion of studies examining both motivation and engagement. Table 2 presents the search strings that were used during the database search process.
Table 2 Search strings
No Search strings
1 (“gamification” OR “game based learning” OR “GBL” OR “serious games”) AND (“chemistry” OR “chemistry education” OR “chemistry teaching” OR “chemistry class”)
2 (“gamification” OR “game based learning” OR “GBL” OR “serious games”) AND (“chemistry” OR “chemistry education” OR “chemistry teaching” OR “chemistry class”) AND (“academic achievement” OR “learning outcomes” OR “academic performance” OR “educational outcomes” OR “outcome” OR “performance” OR “achievement”)
3 (“gamification” OR “game based learning” OR “GBL” OR “serious games”) AND (“chemistry” OR “chemistry education” OR “chemistry teaching” OR “chemistry class”) AND (“student engagement” OR “student motivation” OR “learner engagement” OR “learner motivation” OR “motivation” OR “engagement”)

Implementation of the search strategy

In order to identify relevant literature, keywords categorized into three search strings (as presented in Table 2) were entered into the search engines of Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC databases. These databases were chosen as they are internationally recognized and have a peer-reviewed publication process. Furthermore, ERIC is an index that covers specifically educational studies. Additionally, Google Scholar was excluded for better time management and the potential for duplication or possibility of including non-peer-reviewed publications. Whenever possible, searches were limited to titles, abstracts, and keywords. Additional filters such as publication year, document type, and language were also applied when applicable. The retrieved results were exported into the EndNote21 software. The distinction between gamification, and serious games was made based on the terminology used by the authors of the original studies. During the screening and data inclusion stages, each article was categorized according to the terminology adopted by the authors, thus ensuring consistency with the original definitions used in the reviewed research. The number of results obtained from each database for each search string is presented in Table 3.
Table 3 Number of results obtained according to search strings
Database Results for search string 1 Results for search string 2 Results for search string 3 Total results
Scopus 232 79 48 359
Web of science 196 70 41 307
ERIC 68 29 23 120

Screening process

Following the database search, a duplicate check was conducted first using EndNote 21 software, followed by a manual review. After removing duplicate records, a two-stage screening process was implemented. In the first step, the titles and abstracts of the studies were examined. A broad inclusion strategy was adopted at this stage: studies were excluded only if they clearly failed to meet at least one inclusion criterion.

In the second step, a full-text screening was conducted. At this stage, it was required that each study clearly met all the criteria specified in Table 1. In addition to the studies that met the criteria, forward and backward citation tracking was conducted via Scopus to identify further relevant sources.

In total, 786 articles were initially identified covering the period between 2014 and 2024. Through forward and backward citation searches, an additional 1689 articles were found. After removing duplicates, 1797 unique articles remained. After the title and abstract screening, the number of articles was reduced to 187. Following full-text screening, 52 articles were included in the final review. Some examples of excluded studies include those of Shoesmith et al., 2020; Sieso, 2023, which focused exclusively on university students and did not match the target age range (10–19 years). Studies not written in English, such as those by Le Maire, 2018, were excluded for not meeting the language criterion. Additionally, the abbreviation “GBL” used in the search strings led to the inclusion of irrelevant studies. For instance, studies of Figueredo et al., 2021; Kaiser et al., 2021 were excluded for this reason. In this review, the PRISMA flow diagram is used to illustrate the step-by-step process of identification, screening, eligibility, and final inclusion of studies and narrowed down to 52 articles that met all criteria (see Appendix A (Supplementary Information) for the full mapping).

The PRISMA flow diagram outlining this screening process is presented in Fig. 1.


image file: d5rp00248f-f1.tif
Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram outlining the screening process.

Findings

Game-based approaches used in chemistry education

Between 2014 and 2024, a total of 52 studies that met the predetermined criteria were identified. The data show a notable increase in the use of game-based approaches in chemistry education, particularly in the years 2023 and 2024. This distribution is visually represented in Fig. 2 below.
image file: d5rp00248f-f2.tif
Fig. 2 Distribution of game-based chemistry education studies by years.

It is thought that the reasons for increasing numbers of articles published in 2023 and 2024 could be related to digitalization and technological access after COVID-19 and the rise in studies on digital pedagogies after 2020. In addition, the types of game-based approaches investigated between these years were examined. The numbers obtained from the review conducted based on the criteria defined in the “Search Strings” section and the process described in the “Implementation of the Search Strategy” and “Inclusion Criteria” sections are presented in Table 4. Thus, Table 4 presents the distribution of game-based approaches adopted in chemistry education.

Table 4 Distribution of game-based approaches used in chemistry education
Game-based approach Number of papers (n) Percentage (%)
Game-based learning 35 67.3
Gamification 15 28.9
Serious games 2 3.8
Total 52 100

According to Table 4, game-based learning emerged as the most frequently studied approach in chemistry education between 2014 and 2024, accounting for approximately 67.3% of all included studies. Gamification followed as the second most common approach, comprising 28.9% of the reviewed studies. These studies employed various game elements, such as badges (Hennah and Seery, 2017; Boesdorfer and Daugherty, 2020), quizzes through Kahoot (Rahmahani et al., 2020), Wordwall activities (Nenohai et al., 2022), characters, points, and levels (Villamor and Lapinid, 2022), storytelling and card-based tools (Chen et al., 2023), and escape rooms (Krug and Huwer, 2023; Karayel et al., 2023). These gamification studies differ from GBL, in which the entire instructional process is structured through a game environment. In gamification, game elements are integrated into an existing learning context without transforming it into a complete game, as gamification was also considered the approach by the original authors in the conceptual frameworks of the reviewed studies. Lastly, only two studies (Hodges et al., 2018; Bjørner et al., 2021) explored the use of serious games, representing 3.8% of the total sample. Brown et al. (2018) also noted that among game-based approach research, serious games constitute only a small fraction of all games produced. The reason for the low number of serious games studies compared to the other game approaches could be that serious games may be games developed to improve learners' skills and performance, rather than their primary purpose being entertainment (Loh et al., 2015). Another reason may be due to the difficulty of putting together content experts, course designers, and game designers who should work together to make a serious game in the context of science education as indicated by Garneli et al. (2021). Findings of this study indicate that nearly 70% of the research focused on game-based learning, highlighting its prominence as the preferred instructional strategy in chemistry classrooms over the past decade. Since GBL teaches subjects entirely through games, which differs from gamification where game elements are integrated into a non-game context (Ceker and Ozdamli, 2017), this may lead to more GBL research existing in terms of facilitating pedagogical integration.

Effects of game-based approaches on students’ academic achievement in chemistry classes

This systematic literature review descriptively examined how game-based approaches influence students’ academic achievement in chemistry. A total of 37 studies analyzed the impact of academic performance, making it the most frequently explored outcome in this review. Among these, 31 studies reported positive effects of game-based interventions on students’ academic achievement. This positive effect applies to both game-based learning and gamification approaches. These results are in line with the existing literature on the use of game-based approaches in science education (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021; Alahmari et al., 2023). However, this effect varies depending on the student group. For instance, students with high prior knowledge (Sousa Lima et al., 2019), and students with low achievement achieve greater learning gains from game-based applications (Chen et al., 2020). Consequently, it can be more beneficial, especially in groups of students with low achievement levels. While most studies demonstrated favourable outcomes, six studies revealed different findings, indicating either positive or statistically insignificant (neutral) effects. For instance, a mobile-based game-based learning application revealed lower learning gains for students who were unable to work independently compared to a control group receiving traditional instruction (Cahyana et al., 2017). Another example is a study reporting that the use of a game on nomenclature did not produce significant learning gains when students had insufficient prior knowledge (Sousa Lima et al., 2019). Also, a game-based application on hydrocarbons called “Chemhondro” did not produce significant learning gains for participating students in the study (Fitriyana et al., 2021). Only two studies in the review were classified under the “serious games” approach. One of these focused on redox chemistry and showed that the group exposed to the serious game significantly improved their specific scientific practices and scientific process skills and that the connection between the student and teacher within the learning environment was strengthened (Hodges et al., 2018). Furthermore, out of the 52 articles included in this systematic review, 37 (71.1%) examined the variable of academic achievement. The game-based approaches used in these 37 studies are distributed as follows:

According to Table 5, both approaches have significant potential for improving students' academic performance.

Table 5 Distribution of game-based approaches according to academic achievement variable
Game approach Number of papers (n) Percentage (%)
Game based learning 20 54.1
Gamification 17 45.9
Serious games — 0.0
Total 37 100

As shown in Fig. 3, GBL and Gamification methods are adopted almost equally in research and both approaches are seen as effective in increasing academic achievement in education. However, the fact that the serious games segment is empty in the graph indicates a significant gap in this area. This situation reveals that researchers and practitioners do not sufficiently evaluate serious games, and that future research focusing on this approach should increase.


image file: d5rp00248f-f3.tif
Fig. 3 Distribution of the game approaches in terms of academic achievement variable (n = 37).

GBL studies were found to be effective on students’ academic achievement in terms of laboratory skills and safety topics (Hennah and Seery; 2017; Krug and Huwer, 2023). Similarly, gamification approach supports students' academic achievement. For example, Chen et al. (2020) states that this effect is valid for students of all achievement levels but is most pronounced among low-achieving students. Another application addressing the reaction speed significantly increased in students' reading, writing, and calculation skills in chemistry class (Cahyana et al., 2023).

The effect of game-based approaches on students’ motivation and engagement in chemistry lessons

The studies included in this review that examine the impact of game-based approaches on students’ motivation and engagement in chemistry lessons were analyzed descriptively. In total, 17 studies explored how such approaches influence students' motivation and engagement. Among these, five studies specifically examined the effect of gamification strategies. The results generally point to positive effects. For instance, following the “Mind Tool for Gamified Learning” intervention, 60% of students reported increased motivation in post-intervention surveys (Chen et al., 2023). The use of an “Escape Room” activity in the chemistry classroom enhanced students’ motivation significantly (Krug and Huwer, 2023) as well. Furthermore, a badge system implemented in a redox chemistry unit was found to positively influence student engagement, self-regulation, and motivation (Boesdorfer and Daugherty, 2020). However, some studies also reported neutral outcomes. For example, the gamification of homework through “Classcraft” did not result in a statistically significant increase in student motivation (Villamor and Lapinid, 2022).

Overall, the majority of studies adopting a gamification approach report positive impacts on motivation and engagement in chemistry education. Only one study in this review focused on serious games in the context of motivation and engagement. Interestingly, this study found that using serious games increased class participation for both male and female students compared to traditional methods (Hodges et al., 2018). Moreover, a total of 17 studies examined the motivation variable and its distribution according to game based approaches is shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6 Distribution of motivation according to game-based approaches (n = 17)
Game approach Number of papers (n) Percentage
Game-based learning (GBL) 12 70.6%
Gamification 4 23.5%
Serious games 1 5.9%
Total 17 100%

As Table 6 shows, the motivation variable has been mostly addressed in GBL-based studies. This finding shows that researchers frequently evaluate the potential of game-based learning to increase students' intrinsic motivation. Although motivation has been examined less in gamification studies, this method also contains elements that motivate students. The fact that only one study with a serious games approach examined motivation reveals that this method is still limitedly represented in research.

Fig. 4 shows the percentage distribution of studies including the motivation variable according to game approaches indicating that the GBL approach, which constitutes the largest slice (70.6%), is dominant in motivation-focused studies. The gamification approach (23.5%) is associated with motivation in fewer studies. Serious Games (5.9%) has a very limited share. This situation shows that researchers generally prefer to address the concept of motivation in directly playable and interactive learning environments (GBL). Finally, information on the distribution of game-based approach studies on the engagement variable is presented below. The engagement variable was sometimes examined together with the motivation variable and in some studies, this variable was examined independently. As a result, 15 out of 52 studies included the “Engagement” variable and their distribution according to game-based approaches is shown in Table 7.


image file: d5rp00248f-f4.tif
Fig. 4 Distribution of the game approaches with respect to motivation variable (n = 17).
Table 7 Distribution of engagement according to game-based approaches (n = 15)
Game approach Number of papers (n) Percentage
Game-based learning (GBL) 10 66.7%
Gamification 3 20.0%
Serious games 2 13.3%
Total 15 100%

Table 7 indicates that a total of 15 studies have addressed the variable of student engagement. It has been largely associated with the GBL approach. Since GBL offers student interaction directly within the game process, it provides a suitable ground for measuring behavioural variables such as engagement. However, some research findings suggest that gamification systems based on extrinsic rewards, such as points and badges, carry the risk of weakening intrinsic motivation (Richter et al., 2014), and there is a risk of over-reliance on extrinsic rewards that can decrease deep and lasting engagement (Dichev et al., 2015). Because the goal is to create and maintain intrinsic motivation, careful selection and implementation of gamification, which uses extrinsic motivation, will trigger and help maintain intrinsic motivation (Richter et al., 2014). Furthermore, trying to motivate people by just giving them points will not work in the long term as they might get tired and bored quickly (Dichev et al., 2015), or may focus solely on achieving the highest score (Nyström, 2021).

On the other hand, the fact that the serious games approach has also been associated with engagement in a limited number of studies shows that this method is still open to development in terms of this variable.

Fig. 5 shows the percentage distribution of 15 studies examining the level of engagement according to the types of game approaches. GBL, which constitutes the largest slice (66.7%), visualizes that students are more involved in the process by playing games in active learning environments. Although the gamification (20%) approach increases initial interest such as motivation, it is less represented than GBL in terms of continuity of engagement.


image file: d5rp00248f-f5.tif
Fig. 5 Distribution of the game approaches in terms of motivation and engagement variables (n = 15).

The impact of game-based learning on motivation and engagement research reported positive effects on motivation. For example, a study using game-based learning and inquiry-based learning methods together found that this combination provided higher motivation than inquiry-based learning alone (Srisawasdi and Panjaburee, 2019). Furthermore, game-based learning increased both students' motivation and their interest in chemistry (Lutfi et al., 2021). Nevertheless, not all game based approaches have been equally successful. In some cases, such as the application using Kahoot (Rahmahani et al., 2020) or the study using the scaffolded Mind-Tool (Chen et al., 2023), an increase in motivation was observed, but this increase did not translate into improved learning outcomes. The findings generally indicate positive effects of gamification on motivation and engagement (Chen et al., 2023; Krug and Huwer, 2023). A badge system developed for a redox chemistry course positively impacted students' engagement, self-regulation, and motivation (Boesdorfer and Daugherty, 2020).

It is noteworthy that the use of serious games has been shown to increase both male and female students' participation in class (Hodges et al., 2018).

Discussion and conclusions

This study focused on the use of game-based approaches in chemistry education. Findings indicate growing interest in this area between 2014 and 2024. The results align with broader trends in science education, where there has been an increasing emphasis on integrating game-based learning strategies (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021; Alahmari et al., 2023; Li et al., 2024; Sukmawati et al., 2025). All three game-based approaches—game-based learning, gamification, and serious games— consistently showed positive effects in academic achievement, motivation, and classroom engagement. Furthermore, these approaches have been successfully implemented in chemistry lessons from Grade 8 through Grade 12. Although prior studies have emphasized the use of game-based learning primarily in higher education (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021), the findings of this review demonstrate its effectiveness even at earlier stages of education.

One of the key findings is that game-based approaches positively affect students’ academic performance in chemistry. This positive impact was evident across all three approaches. These results are consistent with existing literature on science education (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021; Lampropoulos et al., 2022; Alahmari et al., 2023). Thus, game-based methods can be considered a beneficial complement to traditional teaching practices in chemistry. However, the effectiveness of such approaches may vary based on student characteristics. For example, students with higher prior knowledge or greater autonomy in learning seem to benefit more from game-based implementations (Cahyana et al., 2017; Sousa Lima et al., 2019). In contrast, these approaches also proved especially beneficial for low-achieving student groups, indicating their potential to support diverse learners. GBL studies were effective in students’ academic achievement in terms of laboratory skills and safety topics (Hennah and Seery; 2017; Krug and Huwer, 2023); gamification approach supported students' academic success (Chen et al. 2020); especially in calculation skills in chemistry class (Cahyana et al., 2023).

The analysis also revealed that game-based approaches enhance students’ motivation. This result is consistent with previous research on their use in science education (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021; Alahmari et al., 2023; Cadiz et al., 2023). Moreover, combining game-based strategies with inquiry-based learning can amplify motivational benefits (Srisawasdi and Panjaburee, 2019). Motivation is recognized as an important factor in academic success, as it is shaped by three fundamental psychological components namely autonomy, competence, and relatedness according to self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Bosch, 2015). GBL increased students' motivation and interest in chemistry (Lutfi et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2022), just as serious games (Hodges et al., 2018; Bjørner et al., 2021). Similarly, the gamification approach generally indicates positive results on motivation and engagement (Chen et al., 2023; Krug and Huwer, 2023) and self-regulation (Boesdorfer and Daugherty, 2020). However, not all gamified interventions were equally successful. In some cases, such as those using Kahoot (Rahmahani et al., 2020) or scaffolded mind-tools (Chen et al., 2023), an increase in motivation did not translate into improved academic performance. This suggests that the relationship between motivation and achievement may not be linear and that other factors—such as cognitive load or content complexity—may also play a role. Future research should explore these dynamics in greater depth.

Another critical finding related to the research obtained from this study is that 37 out of 52 articles (71.1%) focused on the academic achievement variable. 54.1% of these 37 studies used GBL and 45.9% used gamification. No study was found that directly related serious games approach to academic achievement. For instance, Hodges et al. (2018) examined students’ engagement and scientific process skills, emphasizing other aspects of learning outcomes. In particular, the limited use of serious games in this area points to a significant gap in future research. The motivation variable was examined in a total of 17 studies. 70.6% of these studies used GBL, 23.5% used gamification and only 5.9% used serious games approach. Similarly, serious games have not been addressed sufficiently. This reflects the potential of gamification to increase motivation, but it also shows that the motivational effects of serious games are still underexplored. The participation variable was addressed in 15 studies, 66.7% of which used GBL, 20% gamification, and 13.3% serious games. These findings suggest that students’ active participation in the process is generally supported more strongly in GBL environments. Gamification applications mostly trigger superficial participation; serious games have not yet been sufficiently investigated in terms of this variable.

In total, this systematic literature review analyzed 52 studies, revealing that game-based learning is the most used approach. All three approaches demonstrated positive effects on learning, motivation, and participation. The findings offer new insights specific to chemistry education and address previously identified research gaps in the field (e.g., Kalogiannakis et al., 2021). While the search strategies and inclusion criteria used in this study helped identify a substantial number of relevant publications, the analysis is limited by the exclusion of some sources. Future research could investigate additional learning outcomes beyond achievement, motivation, and engagement. In particular, the interdependence between motivation and learning outcomes deserves further examination.

Lastly, future studies should focus on how to effectively implement game-based approaches in chemistry classes to ensure consistent positive outcomes in terms of learning and motivation. While the reviewed research generally supports the effectiveness of these methods, game-based strategies do not always produce the desired effects. In some cases, the outcomes were limited or inconsistent.

Limitations and implications

This study has some limitations. For instance, due to time constraints, search engines such as Google Scholar and certain journal publisher websites were not included. Additionally, print media were not considered, meaning some potential sources may have been overlooked. The underrepresentation of serious games approach between 2014 and 2024 is a limiting factor of generalizability. Another limitation of this review is that the three different approaches—game-based learning, gamification, and serious games—were not analyzed separately. Future research should explore each approach individually to understand its unique effects and potential better. Furthermore, expanding the review and exploring additional outcome measures, including cognitive and affective domains, would give more insights. This review analyzes research findings and also provides practical implications. “GBL”, “Gamification”, and “Serious Games” approaches appear to be particularly effective for teaching abstract or complex chemistry concepts and have a positive impact on students' academic achievement, motivation, and engagement. Furthermore, since students differ in terms of prior knowledge, motivation, and learning styles, student diversity must be carefully considered.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to writing, reviewing and editing this document.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Data availability

Supplementary information (SI) is available. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d5rp00248f.

References

  1. Alahmari M., Jdaitawi M., Rasheed A., Abduljawad R., Hussein E., Alzahrani M. and Awad N., (2023), Trends and gaps in empirical research on gamification in science education: a systematic review of the literature, Contemp. Educ. Technol., 15(3), 2–14 DOI:10.30935/cedtech/13177.
  2. Almeida F. and Simoes J., (2019), The role of serious games, gamification and industry 4.0 tools in the education 4.0 paradigm, Contemp. Educ. Technol., 10(2), 120–136 DOI:10.30935/cet.554469.
  3. Alsaqqaf A., and Li F. W., (2022), Gamifying experiential learning theory, International Conference on Web-Based Learning, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 16–28.
  4. Axelson R. D., and Flick A., (2010), Defining student engagement, Change, 43(1), 38–43.
  5. Baby, B., Srivastav, V., Singh, R., Suri, A. and Banerjee, S., (2016), Serious games: an overview of the game designing factors and their application in surgical skills training, 2016 3rd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), IEEE, pp. 2564–2569.
  6. Banfield J. and Wilkerson B., (2014), Increasing student intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy through gamification pedagogy, Contemp. Issues Educ. Res., 7(4), 291–298.
  7. Becker K., (2021), What's the difference between gamification, serious games, educational games, and game-based learning, Acad. Lett., 209(2), 1–4 DOI:10.20935/AL209.
  8. Bjørner T., Hansen L. G., Välimaa M., Sørensen J. U. and Dobre M., (2021), Design and evaluation of a serious game to supplement pupils’ understanding of molecular structures in chemistry, in Göbel R., Garcia-Aguilar J. and Ma M., (ed.), Serious Games: Joint International Conference, JCSG 2021, Virtual Event, Proceedings, Springer, vol. 7, pp. 263–275 DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-97221-5_24.
  9. Boesdorfer S. B. and Daugherty J., (2020), Using criteria-based digital badging in high school chemistry unit to improve student learning, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 29(3), 421–430 DOI:10.1007/s10956-020-09827-7.
  10. Bosch J., (2015), Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Lernmotivation in der Schule, Potsdamer Zentrum für empirische Inklusionsforschung (ZEIF), 3, 1–9, available at: https://www.uni-potsdam.de/fileadmin/projects/inklusion/PDFs/ZEIF-Blog/Bosch_2015_Lernmotivation.pdf (accessed 4 April 2025).
  11. Bradbury A. E., Taub M. and Azevedo R., (2017), The effects of autonomy on emotions and learning in game-based learning environments, Proc. Annu. Meet. Cogn. Sci. Soc., 39.
  12. Breuer J. and Bente G., (2010), Why so serious? On the relation of serious games and learning, J. Comput. Game Cult., 4(1), 7–24, available at: https://hal.science/hal-00692052/(accessed 1 June 2025).
  13. Brown C. L., Comunale M. A., Wigdahl B. and Urdaneta-Hartmann S., (2018), Current climate for digital game-based learning of science in further and higher education, FEMS Microbiol. Lett., 365(21), fny237 DOI:10.1093/femsle/fny237.
  14. Cadiz G. S., Lacre G. J. R., Delamente R. L. and Diquito T. J. A., (2023), Game-based learning approach in science education: a meta-analysis, Int. J. Soc. Sci. Human Res., 6(3), 1856–1865 DOI:10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i3-61.
  15. Cahyana U., Paristiowati M., Savitri D. A. and Hasyrin S. N., (2017), Developing and application of mobile game based learning (M-GBL) for high school students’ performance in chemistry, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., 13(10), 7037–7047 DOI:10.12973/ejmste/78728.
  16. Cahyana U., Luhukay J. R., Lestari I., Irwanto I. and Suroso J. S., (2023), Improving students' literacy and numeracy using mobile game-based learning with augmented reality in chemistry and biology, Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol., 17(16), 4–15 DOI:10.3991/ijim.v17i16.42377.
  17. Ceker E. and Ozdamli F., (2017), What “gamification” is and what it's not, Eur. J. Contemp. Educ., 6(2), 221–228 DOI:10.13187/ejced.2017.2.221.
  18. Chen Y.-C., Hou H.-T. and Wu C.-H., (2023), Design and development of a scaffolding based mindtool for gamified learning classrooms, J. Educ. Comput. Res., 61(1), 3–29 DOI:10.1177/07356331221101081.
  19. Chen P. Y., Hwang G. J., Yeh S. Y., Chen Y. T., Chen T. W. and Chien C. H., (2022), Three decades of game-based learning in science and mathematics education: an integrated bibliometric analysis and systematic review, J. Comput. Educ., 9(3), 455–476 DOI:10.1007/s40692-021-00210-y.
  20. Chen S., Jamiatul Husnaini S., and Chen J. J., (2020), Effects of games on students’ emotions of learning science and achievement in chemistry, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 42(13), 2224–2245 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2020.1817607.
  21. Crucho C. I., Gomes M. J. and Avó J., (2025), A role-playing tabletop game on laboratory techniques and chemical reactivity: a game-based learning approach to organic chemistry education, ChemRxiv, preprint, available at: https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/680b5e71927d1c2e66b77e56 (accessed 30 June 2025).
  22. Demircioğlu H., (2012), The effects of storylines embedded within the context-based approach on grade 10 students’ conceptions of the change of states, Energy Educ. Sci. Technol., Part B Soc. Educ. Stud., 4(4), 2429–2438.
  23. Deterding S., Dixon D., Khaled R. and Nacke L., (2011), From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”, in Suominen M. (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, ACM, pp. 9–15 DOI:10.1145/2181037.2181040.
  24. Dichev C., Dicheva D., Angelova G. and Agre G., (2015), From gamification to gameful design and gameful experience in learning, Cybern. Inf. Technol., 14(4), 80–100 DOI:10.1515/cait-2014-0007.
  25. Fatimah N. and Hidayah R., (2021), The development of cihoe game as a learning media in the elemental chemistry material, Int. J. Act. Learn., 6(2), 49–57, available at: https://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/ijal (accessed 21 June 2025).
  26. Figueredo A. L., Costa C. S., Gothe M. L., Rossi L. M., Bazito R. C., Vidinha P. and Pereira C. G., (2021), Process optimization for a sustainable and selective conversion of fumaric acid into γ-butyrolactone over Pd-Re/SiO2, Catal. Lett., 151(6), 1821–1833 DOI:10.1007/s10562-020-03433-3.
  27. Fitriyana N., Wiyarsi A., Sugiyarto K. H. and Ikhsan J., (2021), The influences of hybrid learning with video conference and “Chemondro-game” on students’ self-efficacy, self-regulated learning, and achievement toward chemistry, J. Turk. Sci. Educ., 18(2), 233–248 DOI:10.36681/tused.2021.62.
  28. Fleischmann K. and Ariel E., (2016), Gamification in science education: gamifying learning of microscopic processes in the laboratory, Contemp. Educ. Technol., 7(2), 138–159 DOI:10.30935/cedtech/6168.
  29. Fraga-Varela F., Vila-Couñago E., and Martínez-Piñeiro E., (2021), The impact of serious games in mathematics fluency: a study in primary education, Comunicar: Media Educ. Res. J., 29(69), 115–125.
  30. Garneli V., Patiniotis K. and Chorianopoulos K., (2021), Designing multiplayer serious games with science content, Multimodal Technol. Interact., 5(3), 8 DOI:10.3390/mti5030008.
  31. Griggs A., Lazzara E. H., Palmer E., Fouquet S., Leverenz T., Raushel A. and Doherty S., (2019), Utilizing games for learning: applications of game-based training and gamification, Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet., 63(1), 2166–2168 DOI:10.1177/1071181319631361.
  32. Gundersen S. W. and Lampropoulos G., (2025), Using serious games and digital games to improve students’ computational thinking and programming skills in K-12 education: a systematic literature review, Technologies, 13(3), 113 DOI:10.3390/technologies13030113.
  33. Harris J., Quatman C., Manring M., Siston R. and Flanigan D., (2013), How to write a systematic review, Am. J. Sports Med., 42(11), 2763–2768 DOI:10.1177/0363546513497567.
  34. Hennah N. and Seery M. K., (2017), Using digital badges for developing high school chemistry laboratory skills, J. Chem. Educ., 94(7), 844–848 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00175.
  35. Hodges G. W., Wang L., Lee J., Cohen A. and Jang Y., (2018), An exploratory study of blending the virtual world and the laboratory experience in secondary chemistry classrooms, Comput. Educ., 122, 179–193 DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.003.
  36. Hsieh T. L., (2014), Motivation matters? The relationship among different types of learning motivation, engagement behaviors and learning outcomes of undergraduate students in Taiwan, High. Educ., 68, 417–433 DOI:10.1007/s10734-014-9720-6.
  37. Hu Y., Gallagher T., Wouters P., van der Schaaf M. and Kester L., (2022), Game-based learning has good chemistry with chemistry education: a three-level meta-analysis, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 59(9), 1499–1543 DOI:10.1002/tea.21765.
  38. Hummel H. G., Van Houcke J., Nadolski R. J., Van der Hiele T., Kurvers H., and Löhr A., (2011), Scripted collaboration in serious gaming for complex learning: effects of multiple perspectives when acquiring water management skills, Br. J. Educ. Technol., 42(6), 1029–1041 DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01122.x.
  39. Jiménez-Valverde G., Fabre-Mitjans N., Heras-Paniagua C. and Guimerà-Ballesta G., (2025), Tailoring gamification in a science course to enhance intrinsic motivation in preservice primary teachers, Educ. Sci., 15(3), 1–23 DOI:10.3390/educsci15030300.
  40. Kaiser W., Radicchi E., Mosconi E., Kachmar A. and De Angelis F., (2021), Iodide vs chloride: the impact of different lead halides on the solution chemistry of perovskite precursors, ACS Appl. Energy Mater., 4(9), 9827–9835 DOI:10.1021/acsaem.1c01874.
  41. Kalogiannakis M., Papadakis S. and Zourmpakis A.-I., (2021), Gamification in science education: a systematic review of the literature, Educ. Sci., 11(1), 22 DOI:10.3390/educsci11010022.
  42. Karagiorgas D. N. and Niemann S., (2017), Gamification and game-based learning, J. Educ. Technol. Syst., 45(4), 499–519 DOI:10.1177/0047239516665105.
  43. Karayel C. E., Krug M., Hoffmann L., Kanbur C., Barth C. and Huwer J., (2023), ZuKon 2030: an innovative learning environment focused on sustainable development goals, J. Chem. Educ., 100(1), 102–111 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00324.
  44. Kaya O. S. and Ercag E., (2023), The impact of applying challenge-based gamification program on students’ learning outcomes: academic achievement, motivation and flow, Educ. Inf. Technol., 28(8), 10053–10078 DOI:10.1007/s10639-023-11585-z.
  45. Khan A., Ahmad F. H. and Malik M. M., (2017), Use of digital game-based learning and gamification in secondary school science: the effect on student engagement, learning and gender difference, Educ. Inf. Technol., 22(6), 2767–2804 DOI:10.1007/s10639-017-9622-1.
  46. Khoo Y. Y., Ramdan M. R., Abdullah N. L., Abd Aziz N. A. and Mahjom N., (2025), The impacts of game-based learning on thinking and learning in higher education context: a scoping review, Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol., 13(3), 623–637 DOI:10.46328/ijemst.4776.
  47. Kim S., Chang M., Deater-Deckard K., Evans M. A., Norton A. and Samur Y., (2017), Educational games and students' game engagement in elementary school classrooms, J. Comput. Educ., 4(4), 395–418 DOI:10.1007/s40692-017-0095-4.
  48. Krath J., Schürmann L. and von Korflesch H. F., (2021), Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: a systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning, Comput. Human Behav., 125, 106963 DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963.
  49. Krug M. and Huwer J., (2023), Safety in the laboratory—An exit game lab rally in chemistry education, Comput., 12(3), 67 DOI:10.3390/computers12030067.
  50. Laamarti F., Eid M., and El Saddik A., (2014), An overview of serious games, Int. J. Comput. Games Technol., 2014(1), 358152 DOI:10.1155/2014/358152.
  51. Lampropoulos G., Keramopoulos E., Diamantaras K. and Evangelidis G., (2022), Augmented reality and gamification in education: a systematic literature review of research, applications, and empirical studies, Appl. Sci., 12(13), 6809 DOI:10.3390/app12136809.
  52. Landers R. N., Bauer K. N., Callan R. C. and Armstrong M. B., (2014), Psychological theory and the gamification of learning, in Gamification in Education and Business, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 165–186 DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_9.
  53. Lay A. N. and Osman K., (2018), Developing 21st century chemistry learning through designing digital games, J. Educ. Sci. Environ. Health, 4(1), 81–92, available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/415825 (accessed 2 July 2025).
  54. Le Maire N., (2018), “Gamification” of training activities: feedback from a general chemistry course, Actual. Chim., 426, 46–47, available at: https://www.lactualitechimique.org/(accessed 1 March 2025).
  55. Li C. T., Hou H. T. and Lin W. S., (2024), Chemistry education board game based on cognitive mechanism: multi-dimensional evaluation of learners’ knowledge acquisition, flow and playing experience of board game materials, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 42(3), 699–719 DOI:10.1080/02635143.2022.2125505.
  56. Liarokapis F., Anderson E. F. and Oikonomou A., (2010), Serious games for use in a higher education environment, Proc. EGPTA '10: Emerging Games Platforms, Technologies and Applications, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, pp. 69–77.
  57. Loh C. S., Sheng Y. and Ifenthaler D., (2015), Serious games analytics: theoretical framework, Serious Games Analytics: Methodologies for Performance Measurement, Assessment, and Improvement, Cham: Springer Int. Publ., pp. 3–29.
  58. Luarn P., Chen C. C. and Chiu Y. P., 2023, Enhancing intrinsic learning motivation through gamification: a self-determination theory perspective, Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol., 40(5), 413–424 DOI:10.1108/IJILT-07-2022-0145.
  59. Lutfi A., Hidayah R., Sukarmin S. and Dwiningsih K., (2021), Chemical bonding successful learning using the “Chebo collect game”: A case study, J. Technol. Sci. Educ., 11(2), 474–485 DOI:10.3926/jotse.1265.
  60. Majuri J., Koivisto J. and Hamari J., (2018), Gamification of education and learning: a review of empirical literature, in Koivisto J. and Hamari J., (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International GamiFIN Conference (GamiFIN 2018), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS, vol. 2186, pp. 11–19, available at: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2186/paper2.pdf (accessed 2 July 2025).
  61. Manzano-León A., Camacho-Lazarraga P., Guerrero M. A., Guerrero-Puerta L., Aguilar-Parra J. M., Trigueros R. and Alias A., (2021), Between level up and game over: a systematic literature review of gamification in education, Sustainability, 13(4), 2247 DOI:10.3390/su13042247.
  62. Martin A. J., Ginns P. and Papworth B., (2017), Motivation and engagement: same or different? Does it matter? Learn. Individ. Differ., 55, 150–162 DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.013.
  63. Martí-Parreño J., Méndez-Ibáñez E. and Alonso-Arroyo A., (2016), The use of gamification in education: a bibliometric and text mining analysis, J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 32(6), 663–676 DOI:10.1111/jcal.12161.
  64. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J. and Altman D. G., (2009), Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, PLoS Med., 6(7), e1000097 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
  65. Mula-Falcón J., Moya-Roselló I. and Ruiz-Ariza A., (2022), The active methodology of gamification to improve motivation and academic performance in educational contexts: a meta-analysis, Rev. Eur. Stud., 14(2), 32–46 DOI:10.5539/res.v14n2p32.
  66. Nenohai J. A., Rokhim D. A., Agustina N. I. and Munzil M., (2022), Development of gamification-based Wordwall game platform on reaction rate materials, Orbital, 14(2), 116–122 DOI:10.17807/orbital.v14i2.16206.
  67. Noor N. H. M., (2024), Exploring the impact of Kahoot! as an interactive game-based tool in learning chemistry for undergraduates: a review, Int. J. Transform. Health Prof. Educ., 2(1), 53–67 DOI:10.71354/ijthpe.02.01.21.
  68. Noroozi O., Dehghanzadeh H. and Talaee E., (2020), A systematic review on the impacts of game-based learning on argumentation skills, Entertain. Comput, 35, 100369 DOI:10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100369.
  69. Nyström T., (2021), Exploring the darkness of gamification: you want it darker? Intelligent Computing, Springer, Cham, pp. 491–506 DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-80129-8_35.
  70. Oliveira W., Pastushenko O., Rodrigues L., Toda A. M., Palomino P. T., Hamari J. and Isotani S., (2021), Does gamification affect flow experience? A systematic literature review, arXiv, preprint, arXiv:2106.09942 DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2106.09942.
  71. Page M. J., McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T. C. and Mulrow C. D., et al., (2021), The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, Int. J. Surgery, 88, 105906 DOI:10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906.
  72. Papanastasiou G., Drigas A. and Skianis C., (2017), Serious games in preschool and primary education: benefits and impacts on curriculum course syllabus, Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn., 12(1), 44–56 DOI:10.3991/ijet.v12i01.6065.
  73. Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M. and Kitsiou S., (2015), Synthesizing information systems knowledge: a typology of literature reviews, Inf. Manage., 52(2), 183–199 DOI:10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008.
  74. Plass J. L., Homer B. D. and Kinzer C. K., (2015), Foundations of game-based learning, Educ. Psychol., 50(4), 258–283 DOI:10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533.
  75. Pollock A. and Berge E., (2018), How to do a systematic review, Int. J. Stroke, 13(2), 138–156 DOI:10.1177/1747493017743796.
  76. Qian M. and Clark K. R., (2016), Game-based learning and 21st century skills: a review of recent research, Comput. Human Behav., 63, 50–58 DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.023.
  77. Rahmahani D., Suyoto S. and Pranowo P., (2020), The effect of gamified student response system on students' perception and achievement, Int. J. Eng. Pedagog., 10(2), 45–59 DOI:10.3991/ijep.v10i2.11698.
  78. Richter G., Raban D. R. and Rafaeli S., (2014), Studying gamification: the effect of rewards and incentives on motivation, Gamification in Education and Business, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 21–46.
  79. Riopel M., Nenciovici L., Potvin P., Chastenay P., Charland P., Sarrasin J. B. and Masson S., (2019), Impact of serious games on science learning achievement compared with more conventional instruction: an overview and a meta-analysis, Stud. Sci. Educ., 55(2), 169–214 DOI:10.1080/03057267.2019.1722420.
  80. Ryan R. M., Bradshaw E., Deci E. L., Sternberg R. and Pickren W., (2019), A history of human motivation theories, The Cambridge Handbook of the Intellectual History of Psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 391–411.
  81. Ryan R. M. and Deci E. L., (2000), Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being, Am. Psychol., 55(1), 68–78 DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
  82. Sailer M., Hense J. U., Mayr S. K. and Mandl H., (2017), How gamification motivates: an experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Comput. Hum. Behav., 69, 371–380 DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033.
  83. Shiddiqi M. H. A. and Setiyawan N. A., (2024), Implementation of a problem-based learning model with the help of interactive presentation media from Quizziz in increasing student learning motivation in Class XI MIPA 4 in chemistry learning at Kebakkramat State Senior High School, Int. J. Chem. Educ. Res., 8(2), 121–127 DOI:10.20885/ijcer.vol8.iss2.art5.
  84. Shoesmith J., Hook J. D., Parsons A. F. and Hurst G. A., (2020), Organic Fanatic: a quiz based mobile application game to support learning the structure and reactivity of organic compounds, J. Chem. Educ., 97(8), 2314–2318 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00492.
  85. Sieso E. M. T., (2023), Impact of a gamified pedagogical strategy on a university-level chemistry course, Redu-Rev. Docencia Univ., 21(2), 43–61 DOI:10.4995/redu.2023.20311.
  86. Sousa Lima M. A., Monteiro Á. C., Melo Leite Junior A. J., De Andrade Matos I. S., Alexandre F. S. O., Nobre D. J., Monteiro A. J. and Da Silva Júnior J. N., (2019), Game-based application for helping students review chemical nomenclature in a fun way, J. Chem. Educ., 96(4), 801–805 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00540.
  87. Srisawasdi N. and Panjaburee P., (2019), Implementation of game-transformed inquiry based learning to promote the understanding of and motivation to learn chemistry, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 28(2), 152–164 DOI:10.1007/s10956-018-9754-0.
  88. Subhash S. and Cudney E. A., (2018), Gamified learning in higher education: a systematic review of the literature, Comput. Human Behav., 87, 192–206 DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.028.
  89. Sukmawati F., Qodr T. S. and Rutambuka T., (2025), Integrating digital games into project-based learning to enhance student achievement in STEM education, Int. J. Recent Educ. Res., 6(2), 294–315 DOI:10.46245/ijorer.v6i2.744.
  90. Susi T., Johannesson M. and Backlund P., (2007), Serious games: an overview (Technical Report HS-IKI-TR-07-001), University of Skövde, School of Humanities and Informatics, https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:2416/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
  91. Swacha J., (2021), State of research on gamification in education: a bibliometric survey, Educ. Sci., 11(2), 69 DOI:10.3390/educsci11020069.
  92. Toda A. M., Valle P. H. and Isotani S., (2017), The dark side of gamification: an overview of negative effects of gamification in education, Researcher Links Workshop: Higher Education for All, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 143–156.
  93. Tohidi H. and Jabbari M. M., (2012), The effects of motivation in education, Proc. – Soc. Behav. Sci., 31, 820–824 DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.148.
  94. Trowler V., (2010), Student engagement literature review, High. Educ. Acad., 11(1), 1–15.
  95. Tsai Y. L. and Tsai C. C., (2020), A meta-analysis of research on digital game-based science learning, J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 36(3), 280–294 DOI:10.1111/jcal.12430.
  96. Ullah M., Amin S. U., Munsif M., Yamin M. M., Safaev U., Khan H. and Ullah H., (2022), Serious games in science education: a systematic literature, Virtual Real. Intell. Hardw., 4(3), 189–209 DOI:10.1016/j.vrih.2022.02.001.
  97. Venter M., (2020), Gamification in STEM programming courses: state of the art, 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), IEEE, pp. 859–866, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9125395.
  98. Villamor E. G. and Lapinid M. R. C., (2022), The use of gamified differentiated homework in teaching general chemistry, TEM J., 11(2), 594–604 DOI:10.18421/tem112-13.
  99. Wiggins B. E., (2016), An overview and study on the use of games, simulations, and gamification in higher education, Int. J. Game-Learn., 6(1), 18–29.
  100. Zainuddin Z., Chu S. K. W., Shujahat M. and Perera C. J., (2020), The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: a systematic review of empirical evidence, Educ. Res. Rev., 30, 100326 DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326.
  101. Zhang Q. and Yu Z., (2022), Investigating and comparing the effects on learning achievement and motivation for gamification and game-based learning: a quantitative study employing Kahoot, Educ. Res. Int., 2022, 1–16 DOI:10.1155/2022/9855328.
  102. Zhonggen Y., (2019), A meta-analysis of use of serious games in education over a decade, Int. J. Comput. Games Technol., 2019(1), 1–8 DOI:10.1155/2019/4797032.
  103. Zohari M., Karim N., Malgard S., Aalaa M., Asadzandi S. and Borhani S., (2023), Comparison of gamification, game-based learning, and serious games in medical education: a scientometrics analysis, J. Adv. Med. Educ Prof., 11(1), 50.
  104. Zyda M., (2005), From visual simulation to virtual reality to games, Comput., 38(9), 25–32, [Online] Available at: https://mikezyda.com/resources/pubs/Zyda-IEEE-Computer-Sept2005.pdf.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.