"Gamify it" gets thrown around as if adding points to anything makes it educational. It's fair to be sceptical. So before recommending games to anyone, it's worth asking the plain question: does the research actually show they teach?
The short answer: yes, modestly, and only when they're built right.
What the evidence found
Two large reviews are the ones to know. Wouters and colleagues (2013) meta-analysed serious games and found they produced better learning and better retention than conventional instruction. Clark, Tanner-Smith and Killingsworth (2016) reviewed digital games and reached a similar place: a real positive effect on learning outcomes. Both land on the same modest, honest conclusion, and both add the same crucial caveat.
The motivation story is oversold. The same reviews found the boost to engagement was smaller than people assume, and that the design of the game mattered far more than the fact that it was a game. "It's a game, so they'll love it and learn it" is not what the evidence says.
The conditions that make a game teach
Strip the reviews down and the games that work tend to share three things:
- They make the learner retrieve, not just click. Recall is where the learning is.
- They give fast, specific feedback, so a wrong answer is corrected while it still matters.
- They line up with the goal. A game about the exact content you're teaching helps; a fun game about something adjacent is just fun.
A game missing those isn't a weaker version of a good one. It's decoration.
Medicine learned long ago to distrust the question "does it work?" and ask "for whom, and under what conditions?" An average effect across many studies hides a wide spread: some games taught a lot, some taught nothing, and the difference was design, not luck. Read a meta-analysis the way a clinician reads a trial: the average tells you the intervention can work; the conditions tell you whether yours will. For learning games, the conditions are retrieval, feedback, and alignment.
On what an average effect really means.
So, worth it?
The evidence supports games that make learners retrieve, correct them fast, and stay tied to the goal. That's a useful buying test, whether you build activities yourself or pay for a tool: does it do those three things, or just add points? We put that question to work in whether a game builder is worth paying for, and which format trains which skill is the same idea one level down.
Sources & further reading
- Wouters et al. (2013), A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games, Journal of Educational Psychology. Games beat conventional instruction on learning and retention; motivation gains were modest.
- Clark, Tanner-Smith & Killingsworth (2016), Digital Games, Design, and Learning, Review of Educational Research. A positive effect on learning, heavily conditioned by design.
- Educational game. Background and the broader research context.
Written by
Builder at Lingoken
By day I build, and I love teaching kids to code. On weekends I dance, contemporary and Kathak. Languages are the thing I keep coming back to: I grew up between a few (Sindhi, Hindi, Marathi, English) and I'm still happily stumbling through Spanish, Telugu, and Malayalam. That slow, enjoyable business of actually learning a language convinced me practice has to be something you want to do, which is what we're building at Lingoken. I write here about making language activities people genuinely enjoy.
Build your first game free
Turn your next lesson into a game your students actually want to play. No account needed to try it, and no student logins.
Pick a template