Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 50e58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent

research
Meihua Qian*, Karen R. Clark
Eugene T. Moore School of Education, Clemson University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Game-based learning and 21st century skills have been gaining an enormous amount of attention from
Received 18 January 2016 researchers and practitioners. Given numerous studies support the positive effects of games on learning,
Received in revised form a growing number of researchers are committed to developing educational games to promote students’
29 April 2016
21st century skill development in schools. However, little is known regarding how games may influence
Accepted 8 May 2016
student acquisition of 21st century skills. This paper examines the most recent literature in regard to
game-based learning and identified 29 studies which targeted 21st century skills as outcomes. The range
of game genres and game design elements as well as learning theories used in these studies are dis-
Keywords:
Game-based learning
cussed, together with the range of indicators, measures and outcomes for impacts on 21st century skills.
21st century skills The findings suggest that a game-based learning approach might be effective in facilitating students’ 21st
Learning theory century skill development. The paper also provides valuable insights for researchers, game designers,
Game design and educators in issues related to educational game design and implementation in general.
Effect size © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction students’ high academic achievements or psychological

Trends in educational research indicate an increasing interest in
how games may influence learning (e.g., Ke, 2009; Kebritchi,
Hirumi, & Bai, 2008; Wu, Chiou, Kao, Hu, & Huang, 2012b). To
date, a number of literature reviews have been conducted regarding
the effectiveness of game-based learning in various domains such
as business, math, statistics, computer science, biology, and psy-
chology (e.g., Boyle et al., 2014; Connolly, Boyle, MacArthur, Hainey,
& Boyle, 2012; Dempsey, Rasmussen, & Lucassen, 1994; Emes, 1997;
Randel, Morris, Wetzel, & Whitehill, 1992; Vogel et al., 2006; Wolfe,
1997; Wu et al., 2012b). However, no consensus has been reached in
respect to the positive effect of game-based learning. For example,
some studies (e.g., Boyle et al., 2014; Dempsey et al., 1994; Randel
et al., 1992; Vogel et al., 2006) pointed out that game-based
learning might be superior to traditional classroom instruction as
it could increase students’ motivation for learning and provide
them with opportunities to explore and acquire new knowledge
and skills, but others (e.g., Emes, 1997) did not find strong evidence
which supports the association between game-based learning and
* Corresponding author. Eugene T. Moore School of Education, Clemson Univer-
sity, 410 Tillman Hall, Clemson, SC 29634, United States.
E-mail address: mqian@clemson.edu (M. Qian).
development.
Furthermore, most of the previous literature reviews (e.g.,
Connolly et al., 2012; Emes, 1997; Ke, 2009; Randel et al., 1992;
Wolfe, 1997; Wu et al., 2012b) focused on the statistical signifi-
cance of empirical studies and rarely emphasized their practical
significance (i.e., effect size), though the latter is much more
informative than the former. Specifically, any test with a large
sample size tends to be statistically significant, yet it might not be
practically meaningful. Hence, game-based learning may not be
more effective than conventional classroom lectures if the com-
parison appears statistically significant but the corresponding ef-
fect size is tiny.
Most importantly, a few studies have indicated that a growing
number of researchers are committed to developing educational
games to support the teaching of essential 21st century skills (e.g.,
Boyle et al., 2014; Dondlinger, 2007). However, little is known
regarding how game-based learning may influence students’ 21st
century skill development (Ebner & Holzinger, 2007; Ke, 2009;
Kim, Park, & Baek, 2009; Papastergiou, 2009; Van Eck &
Dempsey, 2002). The 21st century skills refer to a wide range of
skills such as learning and innovation skills (i.e., critical thinking,
creativity, collaboration, and communication) and information,
media and technology skills (Binkley et al., 2014), and have been
gaining more and more attention from researchers and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.023
0747-5632/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Qian, K.R. Clark / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 50e58
practitioners (e.g., Chan & Yuen, 2014; Gee, 2007). For instance, the
current school curriculum in Hong Kong clearly emphasizes the
importance of students’ creativity development, and as a result,
teachers are encouraged to develop or adopt innovative teaching
methods to foster students’ creativity in the classroom (Chan &
Yuen, 2014). But at this point, no model exists as to how to best
teach the core 21st century skills in schools.
Game design and play require people to be familiar with media
and technology, and it also requires people to be creative and
critical thinkers, so it has great potential to facilitate students’ 21st
century skill development. Given the lack of consistent empirical
evidence with respect to the effectiveness of game-based learning,
this review aims to examine the most recent literature regarding
game-based learning and seeks to further understand the influence
of games on learning, with a major focus on students’ 21st century
skill development.
2. Literature review
2.1. Definition of game-based learning
Game-based learning (GBL) describes an environment where
game content and game play enhance knowledge and skills
acquisition, and where game activities involve problem solving
spaces and challenges that provide players/learners with a sense of
achievement (e.g., Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2004; McFarlane,
Sparrowhawk, & Heald, 2002; Prensky, 2001).
2.2. Evidence of impact and outcomes for games in education
Previous reviews indicate that the most frequent outcome
investigated in educational game studies was knowledge acquisi-
tion (Connolly et al., 2012; Li & Tsai, 2013) with less than one-third
of the studies investigating problem solving skills (Li & Tsai, 2013),
and affective and motivational outcomes were examined more
frequently in entertainment game studies (Connolly et al., 2012).
Although educational game studies reveal varying degrees of suc-
cess dependent upon academic topic, learner preferences and
participant age (Hays, 2005; Young et al., 2012), GBL tends to
positively influence attitudes and cognitive gains (Connolly et al.,
2012; Dempsey et al., 1994; Hays, 2005; Vogel et al., 2006; Wolfe,
1997; Young et al., 2012). But there is a dearth of high quality
empirical evidence concerning how games in the classroom might
impact the development of 21st century skills.
Skills relevant to the 21st century are dramatically different
from skills the educational system currently values (Squire, 2005).
The 21st century learning and innovative skill set is defined as
critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and communication
(Binkley et al., 2014). Critical thinking skills include scientific
reasoning, systems thinking, computational thinking, decision
making and problem solving (Binkley et al., 2014). Creativity in-
cludes divergent thinking, innovative thinking, originality, inven-
tiveness and the ability to view failure as an opportunity to improve
(Binkley et al., 2014). Collaboration pertains to the ability to work
effectively and respectfully with diverse teams, exercise flexibility
and willingness to make compromises to accomplish goals, and
assume shared responsibility (Binkley et al., 2014). Communication
refers to the ability to articulate thoughts and ideas in a variety of
forms, communicate for a range of purposes and in diverse envi-
ronments, and use multiple media and technologies (Binkley et al.,
2014). Traditional educational practices often hinder creativity by
emphasizing only one correct answer, imposing high-stakes failure,
and favoring conformity and standardization (e.g., Plucker & Makel,
2010). Additionally, 21st century skills are difficult to evaluate using
traditional assessment practices such as the popular standardized
51
testing (Binkley et al., 2014). Games, on the other hand, necessitates
the development of 21st century skills which are valued in the new
digital economy (Gee, 2008; Squire, 2011; Van Eck, 2012) and
provide a means of assessing these hard to evaluate skills (Shute,
2011). Specifically, effective learning is situated, active, and
problem-based and requires immediate feedback (e.g., Boyle,
Connolly, & Hainey, 2011). Well-designed educational games such
as Quest Atlantis (Barab et al., 2009) and The Radix Endeavor (MIT,
2014) provide complex holistic problem-based environments that
can support active and situated learning, require authentic collab-
oration, and offer challenge and immediate feedback (Gee, 2007;
Squire, 2011). However, a systematic review of the impact of
games on 21st century skill development is needed.
2.3. Designing games for education
2.3.1. Game design elements and meaningful learning
Very little is known as to what degree of design complexity is
required for meaningful learning to occur (Hays, 2005; Young et al.,
2012). Many educational games are simple designs that are
narrowly focused on academic content, target low level literacy,
provide drill and practice methods similar to worksheets, and stress
memorization of facts (Squire, 2003; Villalta et al., 2011; Young
et al., 2012). These game designs fail to engage students (Lester
et al., 2014; Squire, 2003).
Meanwhile, research has showed that entertainment games are
able to promote meaningful learning through providing players
with adaptive challenge, curiosity, self-expression, discovery, im-
mediate feedback, clear goals, player control, immersion, collabo-
ration, competition, variable rewards, and low-stakes failure (e.g.,
Anderson, 2011; Gee, 2007; Squire, 2011). All these game design
elements align well with established learning theories such as so-
cial constructivism and flow theory. Therefore, these types of
games can provide situated learning, promote social interactions,
increase motivation and engagement, and provide opportunities to
develop valued 21st century skills (e.g., collaboration, creativity,
communication, critical thinking) (Anderson, 2011;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Gee, 2007; Shute, 2011; Squire, 2011).
However, designing games for specific educational purposes pre-
sents an interdisciplinary challenge as it requires a deep under-
standing of game design theory, knowledge of the academic topic,
and a foundation in relevant learning theories (e.g., Boyle et al.,
2011).
2.3.2. Learning theories and successful game designs
Meaningful learning will not take place without learners’ in-
vestment of time and effort. Popular entertainment games main-
tain players’ engagement by employing “every single worthwhile
learning theory in existence” (Becker, 2007, p.23). Yet, GBL studies
often fail to use theoretical foundations (e.g., Li & Tsai, 2013; Wu,
Hsiao, Wu, Lin, & Huang, 2012a; Wu et al., 2012b). For example,
Wu et al. (2012b) reviewed 567 published studies and found that
GBL tended to yield positive outcomes when learning theories were
incorporated into the design, but surprisingly most studies did not
address learning theories. According to Young et al. (2012), suc-
cessful GBL is not simply providing students with a game and
expecting increased motivation and knowledge acquisition,
“Rather, educational games need to be designed and researched
with careful attention to contemporary learning theories” (Young
et al., 2012, p.68).
The sociocultural theory of learning (Vygotsky, 1978) and flow
theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) align well with successful game
designs and learning outcomes. Vygotsky (1978) states that
learning takes place when it is social, active and situated. Also, play
is conducive to learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Gamers interact in role
52 M. Qian, K.R. Clark / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 50e58
playing environments that allow them to explore social roles (in-
side and outside of the game), form hypotheses, test new ideas, and
develop skills by playing (Gee, 2005; Squire, 2005; Tennyson &
Breuer, 2002). Twining (2009, 2010) has outlined a modern peda-
gogy that includes dimensions of ‘learning by being told’, ‘learning
by doing’, ‘learning through role play’, and ultimately ‘learning by
becoming’. Many successful entertainment games provide incred-
ibly realistic and immersive environments where gamers can learn
through role play experiences. These games can provide a suc-
cessful design model for digital GBL.
Also, flow theory is a natural foundation for motivation in games
and learning. Flow causes the player to lose time and goal-directed
activity is driven by pure pleasure rather than external rewards
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Entertainment game designers balance
the game’s challenge level with the player’s skill level to create and
maintain flow. However, many educational games interrupt the
state of flow by inserting content and content assessment via
quizzes and tests (Shute, 2011). Successful game designers utilize
internal analytics to collect data on the gamers, adapt challenges to
maintain flow, and provide timely feedback. Educational games can
implement this model so that learning via game play can continue
fluidly while assessments are conducted inconspicuously and so
that flow is maintained (Shute, 2011).
According to Li and Tsai (2013), constructivism (e.g., the socio-
cultural theory of learning) is one of the major theoretical foun-
dations employed by GBL researchers in science education. The
present study will examine the learning theories that are utilized in
GBL related to the 21st century skill development.
2.4. Research questions
Despite a growing interest in games for learning, rigorous
empirical evidence is needed to evaluate the potential of GBL with
respect to 21st century skills. Additionally, empirical research on
GBL is fragmented by many variables such as learner variables,
game design variables, research purpose and methodology (Hays,
2005; Ke, 2009). This lack of cohesion presents a barrier to
designing good educational games and understanding how games
can be used most effectively in the classroom (Connolly et al., 2012).
The aim of this paper is to determine what empirical evidence
exists concerning the effects of GBL on 21st century skills and to
identify successful game design elements that align well with
established learning theories. The findings will provide valuable
guidance for future educational game designs which are intended
to support 21st century skill development.
3. Method
3.1. Search terms and database searched
A keyword search was conducted using Academic Search
Complete which is the most comprehensive scholarly, multi-
disciplinary database in the world and covers all subject areas
from 1965 to present. Since technology advances at a rapid pace
and this review aims to examine the most recent literature
regarding game-based learning, the date range was restricted from
January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014, and the following keywords
were used: (“serious game*”) OR (“game-based learning”) OR
(“design-based learning”) OR (“educational game*”) OR (“video
game*”) OR (“augmented reality”) OR (entertainment game*) OR
(“mobile game*”) OR (“ubiquitous learning”) OR (“massively multi-
player online role playing games”) AND (“learning”) OR (“educa-
tion”) OR (“behavior”) OR (“skills”) OR (“21st century skills”). This
search resulted in 3118 articles.
3.2. Selection of papers for inclusion in the review
Articles from the following six journals were chosen as a
representative sample of recent research on GBL: Computers &
Education; Computers in Human Behavior; Information Sciences;
Journal of the Learning Sciences; Learning and Instruction; and British
Journal of Education Technology. The resulting 397 articles were
analyzed by two raters to identify appropriate papers for this re-
view, and 137 studies met our inclusion criteria.
To be included in this review, papers had to (a) include evidence
related to digital technology enhanced learning environments; (b)
include quantitative statistics with effect size being or not being
reported; and (c) date from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014.
The Cohen’s Kappa statistic was used to examine the interrater
reliability. According to Cohen (1960) and McHugh (2012), our
interrater reliability was high (ҡ ¼ 0.82), and we resolved all dis-
agreements to consensus through discussion.
3.3. Data analysis
The 137 papers meeting the initial inclusion criteria were
analyzed to explore potential influences of digital games on
learning, especially on student acquisition of 21st century skills.
3.3.1. Categorization of games
Categories were defined based on the primary purpose of the
game. Educational games and serious games are games developed
specifically for educational purposes. Commercial off the shelf,
console games (video games), and online games (massively multi-
player online role playing games) are categorized as entertainment
games. Games-based learning is a common term with broad in-
terpretations and can include educational games, edutainment, or
entertainment games. Therefore, papers whose research design
specified games-based learning were further categorized based on
the specific game or instrument used in the study (education,
entertainment, or non-game). Design-based-learning studies uti-
lized games with a design focus rather than playing the game.
These studies may have students designing a digital product such
as digital story telling or using visual coding tools to design games.
It was decided to make design-based games a category since the
premise of the game is unique. Although this literature review
aimed to investigate games for learning, our search returned a
number of studies which focused on mobile tools. These mobile
tools are considered games, or not, based on the specific design of
that tool. Mobile tools designated as a mobile game and mobile
augmented reality/context aware were categorized as mobile (AR).
3.3.2. Categorization of outcomes
Outcomes were categorized as 21st century skills (critical
thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration), cognitive
(retention, transfer, cognitive load, and knowledge acquisition),
skills (motor, spatial, and visual skills) or behavioral (behaviors and
attitudes).
3.3.3. Categorization of ages
Age groups were determined based on the American education
system, with elementary school including K-5 (5e11 years old),
middle school as grades 6e8 (12e14 years old), high school being
grades 9e12 (15e18 years old), and higher education including
community college and university (undergraduate and graduate
levels). Adults refer to participants who are no longer in school such
as employees in a company.
3.3.4. Categorization of effect sizes
The conventional criteria were used to categorize the effect sizes
 M. Qian, K.R. Clark / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 50e58
reported in the primary studies, which included correlation mea-
sure r, Cohen’s d, and partial eta-squared (h2p). Specifically, ac-
cording to Cohen (1988), a correlation coefficient of 0.10 is small,
0.30 is medium, and 0.50 is large. The corresponding thresholds for
standardized mean difference (i.e., Cohen’s d) are 0.20, 0.50 and
0.80 (Cohen, 1988). For partial eta-squared, the thresholds for small,
moderate and large are 0.01, 0.06 and 0.14 (Cohen, 1988; Miles &
Shevlin, 2001).
4. Results
4.1. General findings
Fig. 1 suggests an overall upward trend in quantitative game-
based learning research.
The 137 papers identified for review were diverse with respect
to game genres, participant ages, and learning outcomes. Specif-
ically, participants in these studies covered a wide range of ages.
The majority of the studies investigated higher education (30%),
followed by middle (21%), elementary (20%) and high school (13%)
age, and adults (9%). Several studies did not specify age of partici-
pants since the research design surveyed online game communities
(8%).
Various game genres were used in the studies. Most of the pa-
pers (50%) used an educational game, and the rest used enter-
tainment games (25%), mobile augmented reality or mobile games
(15%), design-based games/tools (7%), and intelligent tutoring sys-
tems, gamification or other digital technologies (4%).
A wide variety of learning outcomes were investigated. As every
paper discussed multiple learning outcomes, the outcomes are
reported as percentages. The majority of the studies included some
behavior(s) as learning objectives (42%). Other outcomes investi-
gated were cognitive (38%), 21st century skills (13%) and skills (7%).
A total of 29 papers (21%) investigated 21st century skills.
4.2. Game-based learning and 21st century skills
4.2.1. Learning outcomes
Twenty-nine papers reported the influence of games on the
development of 21st century skills, with the majority focusing on
critical thinking skills (Fig. 2). Only one of the articles considered
communication as a learning outcome, although it is an essential
21st century skill (Binkley et al., 2014).
4.2.2. Age groups
Participants’ age in the 29 papers analyzing games-based
Fig. 1. Number of quantitative GBL studies by year.
53
Fig. 2. Twenty first century skills targeted as learning outcomes in GBL studies.
learning for 21st century skill development ranged from elemen-
tary school age to adult. The majority of the papers focused on
higher education (27%) and middle school (27%), followed by
elementary school (20%) and high school (13%) and adults (10%)
and undisclosed (3%).
4.2.3. Learning theories
Analysis of the 29 studies investigating 21st century skills
development using GBL reveals that the majority of the studies
(76%) explicitly referenced at least one established learning theory
in the research design and/or in the game design (Table 1), with
constructivism being the most popular one, and a variety of other
learning theories (e.g., constructionism and flow theory) being
used as foundations for the research design or the game design.
4.2.4. Game design elements
Further analysis of the 29 studies indicates that game design
elements were specifically targeted in the choice of game, and most
studies (90%) included more than one game design element.
Additionally, half of the studies utilized pre-existing games (video
games, serious games, simulations, augmented reality and design
focused games), and the rest designed a game specific to their
study. Table 2 displays the distribution of all the game design ele-
ments, with collaboration, role playing, narrative, exploration, and
complexity being the most popular ones.
4.2.5. Effect sizes
Twenty nine papers investigating the effects of GBL on 21st
century skills reported a total of 97 outcomes, with 85% of the re-
sults being significant (i.e., p < 0.05), and roughly one-third (34%)
being associated with medium to large effect sizes (Fig. 3).
4.2.6. Game genres and effect sizes
Table 3 shows very few entertainment game-related studies
investigated 21st century skills as learning outcomes, and most
studies which reported moderate to large effect sizes employed
either educational games or design-based learning. Also, six papers
(21%) used mobile games, yet no effect sizes were reported.
4.2.7. Game-design elements and effect sizes
Additionally, Table 4 displays the relationship between game
design elements implemented in the 29 studies and the practical
significance of the empirical findings. Collaboration, competition,
complexity, exploration and discovery, role play, self-expression
and interactivity tended to be associated with moderate or large
effect sizes.
An in-depth examination of a total of 13 studies which reported
both significant results and effect sizes reveals that these studies
54 M. Qian, K.R. Clark / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 50e58

Table 1
Learning theories implemented in game-based learning studies.

Learning theory Count of Study

Papers

Constructivism
Constructionism
Activity theory
Experiential & generative
learning
Flow theory
Cognitive theory
Narrative centered learning
Scientific discovery as duel
search model
Situated learning theory
Uses & gratification theory
13 Ahmed and Parsons (2013); Barzilai and Blau (2014); Chang, Chen, and Hsu (2011); Charitonos, Blake, Scanlon, and Jones
(2012); Chiang, Yang, and Hwang (2014); H€ ama €la
€inen and Oksanen (2012); Hou and Li (2014); Lan, Tsai, Yang, and Hung
(2012); Robertson (2012); Vos, van der Meijden, and Denessen (2011); Yang and Wu (2012a); Yang (2012b); Yang and Chang
(2013)
4 Akcaoglu and Koehler (2014); Ke (2014); Hou and Li (2014); Liu, Cheng, and Huang (2011)
2 Dzeng, Lin, and Wang (2014); Ryu and Parsons (2012)
2 Ranchhod, Gura u, Loukis, and Trivedi (2014); Pasin and Giroux (2011)
2 Hou and Li (2014); Ryu and Parsons (2012)
1 Johnson and Mayer (2010)
1 Lester et al. (2014)
1 Lazonder, Hagemans, and de Jong (2010)
1 Hou and Li (2014)
1 Reychav and Wu (2014)

Table 2
Game design element implemented in game-based learning study.

Game design Count of Study

element Papers

Collaboration 8 Chiang et al. (2014); Ha€ma€l€ nchez and Olivares (2011); van der
ainen and Oksanen (2012); Lan et al. (2012); Ryu and Parsons (2012); Sa
Meij, Albers, and Leemkuil (2011); Vos et al. (2011); Yang (2012b)
Role Playing 7 Dzeng et al. (2014); Ha€ma€la
€inen and Oksanen (2012); Howland and Good (2015); Robertson (2012); Vos et al. (2011); van der Spek and
van Oostendorp (2013); Yang and Chang (2013)
Exploration 6 Ahmed and Parsons (2013); Chiang et al. (2014); Ke (2014); Lazonder et al. (2010); Ryu and Parsons (2012); Yang (2012b)
Narrative 6 Howland and Good (2015); Hou and Li (2014); Ke (2014); Lester et al. (2014); Robertson (2012); Yang and Chang (2013)
Complexity 5 Akcaoglu and Koehler (2014); Lester et al. (2014); Pasin and Giroux (2011); Ranchhod et al. (2014); Yang and Chang (2013)
Competition 4 Johnson and Mayer (2010); Ranchhod et al. (2014); Vos et al. (2011); Yang (2012b)
Strategy 4 Barzilai and Blau (2014); Hamlen (2012); Liu et al. (2011); van der Meij et al. (2011)
Challenge 3 Hou and Li (2014); Johnson and Mayer (2010); Liu et al. (2011)
Clear goals 3 Hou and Li (2014); Johnson and Mayer (2010); Ryu and Parsons (2012)
Communication 3 Ahmed and Parsons (2013); Charitonos et al. (2012); Lan et al. (2012)
Discovery 3 Chiang et al. (2014); Lazonder et al. (2010); Yang (2012b)
Immediate 3 Chang, Wu, Weng, and Sung (2012); Dzeng et al. (2014); Pasin and Giroux (2011)
feedback
Augmented 2 Chang et al. (2011); Chiang et al. (2014)
reality
Control 2 Yang and Chang (2013); Yang and Wu (2012a)
Interactivity 2 Lester et al. (2014); Vos et al. (2011)
Low stakes 2 Liu et al. (2011); Yang (2012b)
failure
Realism 2 Pasin and Giroux (2011); Ranchhod et al. (2014)
Rules 2 Hou and Li (2014); Johnson and Mayer (2010)
Scaffolds 2 Barzilai and Blau (2014); Liu et al. (2011)
Self-expression 2 Akcaoglu and Koehler (2014); Yang and Wu (2012a)
Curiosity 1 Yen and Lee (2011)
Explanation 1 Ryu and Parsons (2012)
Immersion 1 nchez and Olivares (2011)
Sa
Rewards 1 Chang et al. (2012)
Scripted game 1 H€
am€ €inen and Oksanen (2012)
ala
play
Social 1 Charitonos et al. (2012)
Surprise 1 van der Spek and van Oostendorp (2013)
Uncertainty 1 van der Spek and van Oostendorp (2013)

focused on GBL and critical thinking skills (e.g., Akcaoglu & Koehler,
2014; Vos et al., 2011; Yang & Chang, 2013; Yang & Wu, 2012a;
Yang, 2012b), and rarely targeted other 21st century skills such as
creativity and collaboration as learning outcomes.
For example, Yang (2012b) used an entertainment game to
investigate the effectiveness of GBL with an emphasis on
constructivism learning theory and five game design elements (i.e.,
exploration, discovery, competition, collaboration, and low stakes
failure). Results found that playing the game significantly improved
participants’ problem solving skills (partial ƞ2 ¼ 0.14).
Vos et al. (2011) compared design-based learning and GBL. The
study was founded in constructivism theory and focused on game
design elements of role playing, interactivity, collaboration and
competition. Students designing their own games were signifi-
cantly more interested (Cohen’s d ¼ 1.09) and exhibited deeper
strategy formation (Cohen’s d ¼ 1.07) than students who only
played the game. Students in the design group also expressed
significantly higher perception of competence than the play only
groups (Cohen’s d ¼ 0.35).
Another design-based learning study, also founded in social
constructivism theory, focused on game design elements of control,
narrative, role playing and complexity. This study found game play
 M. Qian, K.R. Clark / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 50e58 55

5. Discussion

The current review focused on positive impacts of game-based

Fig. 3. Results reported for game-based learning effects on 21st century skills.
learning on the development of 21st century skills. Our initial
search returned 3118 peer-reviewed journal articles, and Fig. 1
suggests that there is an increasing interest in digital media and
games for learning.
In the end, 137 papers met our inclusion criteria and were
selected for this review. These studies were diverse in terms of
learning outcomes, game genres and participants’ ages, reflecting
the wide range of interests in games for learning. But as expected,
the most frequently occurring outcomes were still behaviors and
attitudes (42%) as well as cognitive gains (38%). The most frequently
used game genre was educational (e.g. serious games, simulations,
educational, edutainment) (50%), and a relatively small proportion
of the studies employed entertainment games (25%) or mobile
games (15%), although the latter remains very popular as daily
entertaining activities. In other words, whereas entertainment

Table 3
Effect sizes and game genres.

Game genre Number of Papers Number of results Large effect size Moderate effect size Small effect size
(total ¼ 29) (total ¼ 97) (total ¼ 24) (total ¼ 9) (total ¼ 3)

Education 11 40 7 5 2
Entertainment 4 17 4 0 0
Design Based 8 28 13 4 1
Mobile (AR) 6 12 0 0 0

Table 4
Effect sizes and game design elements implemented in game-based learning studies.

Game design element Large effect sizea (total ¼ 74) Moderate effect sizea (total ¼ 36) Small effect sizea (total ¼ 4)

Challenge 2 2
Collaboration 8 2 1
Competition 10 4 1
Complexity 5 4
Control 3 2
Exploration & Discovery 8
Goals 2 2
Interactivity 4 2 1
Low Stakes Failure 3
Narrative 2 4
Realism 1 2
Role Play 6 5 1
Rules 2 2
Scaffolds 2
Self-Expression 7
Strategy 1 2
Surprise & Uncertainty 1

Note.
a
The total number of effect sizes reported in Table 4 was larger than that was reported in Table 3 because each study involved multiple game design elements.

significantly improved students’ critical thinking skills (partial
ƞ2 ¼ 0.10), significantly increased their achievement (partial
ƞ2 ¼ 0.07), and revealed a significant retention of critical thinking
skills one month later (partial ƞ2 ¼ 0.18) (Yang & Chang, 2013).
Lazonder et al. (2010) designed an educational game based on
Scientific Discovery as Duel Search Model (SDDSM). Game design
elements were exploration and discovery. Students generated more
specific hypotheses when they were given access to domain in-
formation via help files (Cohen’s d ¼ 1.87 to 2.23). However, par-
ticipants who had access to domain information performed less
exploratory experiments than the group with no access to domain
information (Cohen’s d ¼ 7.79) (Lazonder et al., 2010).
games are known for its exciting and engaging features (e.g.,
adaptive challenge, player control, and variable rewards) and have
potential to promote meaningful learning (e.g., Anderson, 2011;
Gee, 2007; Squire, 2011), its actual capability of serving as a
powerful learning tool still needs further investigation.
The age of participants ranged from pre-elementary school
through adult with the most frequent age group being higher ed-
ucation (30%). However, it is encouraging to discover that roughly
half of the studies (54%) addressed the effects of GBL concerning
elementary, middle or high school students because they are the
digital generation who have to understand technology and utilize it
to benefit their lives.
Yet, out of the 137 articles which met our inclusion criteria, only
56 M. Qian, K.R. Clark / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 50e58
29 studies targeted 21st century skills as outcomes, with 13
reporting effect sizes. Specifically, while creativity, critical thinking,
collaboration and communication play equally important roles in
students’ development, critical thinking skills turned out to be the
most frequently investigated outcome. Even more surprisingly,
only one of the 29 studies reported results about communication,
and a few investigated creativity, although creativity, as part of 21st
century learning models, has been emphasized in curricular
frameworks around the world (e.g., Ananiadou & Claro, 2009; Chan
& Yuen, 2014; Pellegrino & Hilton, 2013; Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
Hence, studies in the future need to explore how games, especially
educational games might foster students’ 21st century skill devel-
opment in terms of communication and creativity.
With regard to the age group, a similar pattern was observed.
Less than one third (27%) of the 29 studies focused on higher ed-
ucation, and the majority (60%) were devoted to elementary,
middle and high school students. This is an exciting finding because
young kids and teenagers constitute the major force whose 21st
century skill development will be heavily impacted by technology.
A further review of the 29 articles investigating 21st century
outcomes indicates that 22 referenced one or more learning the-
ories as a theoretical framework. The most commonly referenced
theoretical foundations were constructivism and constructionism
(see Table 1). Both merge nicely with naturalistic game play as
learning takes place when it is social, active, and situated (e.g.,
Vygotsky, 1978). Also, according to Wu et al. (2012b), GBL is more
likely to yield positive outcomes when learning theories are
incorporated into the design. Fortunately, the present study shows
that most of the 29 articles targeting 21st century skills as learning
outcomes did focus on existing learning theories. The challenge for
instructional designers is the complex task of designing a game
with the goal of intentional instruction (Becker, 2007) without
alienating the player by inserting overt academic content or
stressing learning outcomes that do not blend seamlessly with the
game mechanics. In other words, maintaining the state of flow is
important, but flow theory was only explicitly referenced in two of
these studies (i.e., Hou & Li, 2014; Ryu & Parsons, 2012).
As far as game design elements are concerned, games that
present materials in a quiz format or drill and practice format do
not engage learners (e.g., Lester et al., 2014; Ruggiero & Watson,
2014; Squire, 2003), while well-designed games can engage
learners in reflective thinking (Johnson & Mayer, 2010). The ma-
jority of the 29 papers investigating GBL impacts on 21st century
skills employed multiple game-design elements, with collabora-
tion, role playing, narrative, exploration, and complexity being the
most popular ones (see Table 2). Therefore, these GBL studies
focused on complex game designs rather than the typical educa-
tional drill and practice or simple quiz design.
Collaboration was the most frequently targeted game design
element in the 29 papers reporting 21st century skills outcomes
(see Table 2). Collaboration and competition are game-design ele-
ments used to engage players in social interactions that lead to
persistence in game play. Well-designed games such as massively
multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGS) pose various
challenges that encourage collaborative problem solving
(Steinkuehler, 2008); thereby giving individuals opportunities to
develop 21st century skills.
Role playing was the second most frequently targeted game
design element in these papers (see Table 2). Role playing in virtual
worlds can give the player a sense of identity within the game and
effectively enhance students’ real-world competency. Twining
(2010) suggests that virtual worlds offer role playing experiences
that engage learners in activities that can be as real as anything
experienced in a physical classroom.
Entertainment games capitalize on design elements such as
adaptive challenge, curiosity, self-expression, discovery, clear goals,
player control, immersion, collaboration, competition, immediate
feedback, variable rewards, and low-stakes to maintain learners’
motivation and keep them actively involved throughout the game
(e.g., Anderson, 2011; Gee, 2007; Squire, 2011). Educational games
can use all of these design elements to engage students and provide
opportunities to develop valued 21st century skills as well
(Anderson, 2011; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Gee, 2007; Shute, 2011;
Squire, 2011).
Another major finding of the present study is that 29 articles
investigating 21st century skills reported 97 outcomes in total.
While the majority of the results (85%) were statistically significant,
the practical significance of nearly half of the empirical findings
(48%) remains unknown (see Fig. 3). In other words, those studies
have limited practical implications as effect sizes were not
reported.
Table 3 further suggests that studies which reported medium to
large effect sizes employed either educational games, entertain-
ment games, or design-based games. Design-based games seemed
to be more effective than educational or entertainment games as 17
out of 28 results were practically significant (see Table 3). In addi-
tion, six papers (21%) used mobile augmented reality or mobile
games. But no effect sizes were reported. Hence, it is hard to
evaluate whether mobile games are truly effective or not, although
it is getting increasingly popular among students due to the prev-
alence of electronic devices such as smart phones, tablets and iPads
(e.g., Squire & Dikkers, 2011).
Table 4 shows that a number of game design elements were
implemented in those GBL studies that reported moderate to large
effect sizes. They are collaboration, competition, complexity,
exploration and discovery, role play, self-expression and inter-
activity. Therefore, it is recommended that researchers and prac-
titioners who aim to promote students’ 21st century skill
development using GBL emphasize these game design elements
when selecting or creating effective educational games in the
future.
5.1. Limitations
The current review has several limitations. First, quantitative
studies instead of qualitative research on the effectiveness of GBL
were selected as we aimed to analyze both statistical and practical
significance of empirical findings. Second, the review focused on
studies that were published in six journals in 2010e2014. Based on
the rapid pace of technology advancement and change, a five year
time frame captures recent and advanced technologies and usages.
The papers discussed in this literature review provide researchers
and practitioners with great insights concerning the impacts of GBL
on the development of 21st century skills. However, an extended
review which includes articles published in all the technology-
related journals might be able to provide additional information.
5.2. Conclusion
The current review analyzed the impacts of GBL on 21st century
skills development in depth and revealed that the effectiveness of
GBL seems to depend on game designs. Specifically, game designs
which feature a blending of established learning theories with
game design elements proven successful in the entertainment
game industry are most likely to lead to effective learning. With
regard to game genres, design-based games tend to work better
than simply having students play educational or entertainment
games. In summary, the present study indicates there is reason to
be optimistic about the potential of using a game-based learning
approach to promote 21st century skill development in the future,
 M. Qian, K.R. Clark / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 50e58
although only one third of the empirical findings were associated
with medium to large effect sizes and a few studies targeted
creativity, communication and collaboration as learning outcomes.
References
Ahmed, S., & Parsons, D. (2013). Abductive science inquiry using mobile devices in
the classroom. Computers & Education, 63, 62e72.
Akcaoglu, M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the game-design and
learning (GDL) after-school program. Computers & Education, 75, 72e81.
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new mil-
lennium learners in OECD countries. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/218525261154.
Paris: OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41.
Anderson, S. P. (2011). Seductive interaction design: Creating playful, fun, and effective
user experiences. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S. J., et al.
(2009). Transformational play as a curricular scaffold: using videogames to
support science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4),
305e320.
Barzilai, S., & Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: impact on learning
achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Educa-
tion, 70, 65e79.
Becker, K. (2007). Pedagogy in commercial video games. Games and simulations in
online learning: Research and development frameworks. Hershey, PA: Information
Science Publishing.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Runmble, M. (2014,
December 8). Partnership for 21st century skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.
org/.
Boyle, E., Connolly, T. M., & Hainey, T. (2011). The role of psychology in under-
standing the impact of computer games. Entertainment Computing, 2(2), 69e74.
Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E. W., Connolly, T. M., Hainey, T., Manea, M., Ka €rki, A., et al.
(2014). A narrative literature review of games, animations and simulations to
teach research methods and statistics. Computers & Education, 74, 1e14.
Chang, C. S., Chen, T. S., & Hsu, W. H. (2011). The study on integrating WebQuest
with mobile learning for environmental education. Computers & Education,
57(1), 1228e1239.
Chang, K. E., Wu, L. J., Weng, S. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2012). Embedding game-based
problem-solving phase into problem-posing system for mathematics learning.
Computers & Education, 58(2), 775e786.
Chan, S., & Yuen, M. (2014). Personal and environmental factors affecting teachers’
creativity-fostering practices in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12,
69e77.
Charitonos, K., Blake, C., Scanlon, E., & Jones, A. (2012). Museum learning via social
and mobile technologies: (How) can online interactions enhance the visitor
experience? British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 802e819.
Chiang, T. H., Yang, S. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). Students’ online interactive patterns
in augmented reality-based inquiry activities. Computers & Education, 78,
97e108.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37e46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
001316446002000104.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hill-
sdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012).
A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and
serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661e686.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York,
NY: Harper Perennial.
Dempsey, J. V., Rasmussen, K., & Lucassen, B. (1994). Instructional gaming: impli-
cations for instructional technology. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the association for educational communications and technology, Nashville, TN.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED368345.pdf.
Dondlinger, M. J. (2007). Educational video game design: a review of the literature.
Journal of applied educational technology, 4(1), 21e31.
Dzeng, R. J., Lin, K. Y., & Wang, P. R. (2014). Building a construction procurement
negotiation training game model: learning experiences and outcomes. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 45(6), 1115e1135.
Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game
based learning in higher education: an example from civil engineering. Com-
puters & education, 49(3), 873e890.
Emes, C. E. (1997). Is Mr. Pac Man eating our children? A review of the effect of
video games on children. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 42, 409e414.
Gee, J. P. (2005). What would a state of the art instructional video game look like?
Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(6), 1.
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy:
Revised and updated edition. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2008). Game-like learning: an example of situated learning and impli-
cations for opportunity to learn. In Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn
(pp. 200e221).
Ha€ma€la€inen, R., & Oksanen, K. (2012). Challenge of supporting vocational learning:
empowering collaboration in a scripted 3D gameeHow does teachers’ real-time
orchestration make a difference? Computers & Education, 59(2), 281e293.
Hamlen, K. R. (2012). Stochastic frontier estimation of efficient learning in video
57
games. Computers & Education, 58(1), 534e541.
Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and
discussion. Orlando FL: Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (No.
NAWCTSD-TR-2005-004).
Hou, H. T., & Li, M. C. (2014). Evaluating multiple aspects of a digital educational
problem-solving-based adventure game. Computers in Human Behavior, 30,
29e38.
Howland, K., & Good, J. (2015). Learning to communicate computationally with Flip:
a bi-modal programming language for game creation. Computers & Education,
80, 224e240.
Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the self-explanation principle to
multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like environment. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26(6), 1246e1252.
Ke, F. (2009). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools.
Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education, 1, 1e32.
Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating
educational computer games: a case study on mathematics learning during
design and computing. Computers & Education, 73, 26e39.
Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2008). The effects of modern math computer
games on learners’ math achievement and math course motivation in a public
high school setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 49e259.
Kim, B., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2009). Not just fun, but serious strategies: using meta-
cognitive strategies in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 52(4),
800e810.
Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature review in games and learning (Vol.
8). Bristol, UK: Futurelab.
Lan, Y. F., Tsai, P. W., Yang, S. H., & Hung, C. L. (2012). Comparing the social
knowledge construction behavioral patterns of problem-based online asyn-
chronous discussion in e/m-learning environments. Computers & Education,
59(4), 1122e1135.
Lazonder, A. W., Hagemans, M. G., & De Jong, T. (2010). Offering and discovering
domain information in simulation-based inquiry learning. Learning and In-
struction, 20(6), 511e520.
Lester, J. C., Spires, H. A., Nietfeld, J. L., Minogue, J., Mott, B. W., & Lobene, E. V. (2014).
Designing game-based learning environments for elementary science educa-
tion: a narrative-centered learning perspective. Information Sciences, 264, 4e18.
Li, M. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Game-based learning in science education: a review of
relevant research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 877e898.
Liu, C. C., Cheng, Y. B., & Huang, C. W. (2011). The effect of simulation games on the
learning of computational problem solving. Computers & Education, 57(3),
1907e1918.
McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of
games. Cambridge: TEEM (Teachers evaluating educational multimedia).
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica
(Zagreb), 22(3), 276e282.
van der Meij, H., Albers, E., & Leemkuil, H. (2011). Learning from games: does
collaboration help? British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 655e664.
Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2001). Applying regression and correlation: A guide for stu-
dents and researchers. London: Sage Publications.
MIT/The Education Arcade. (2014). The Radix endeavor (Version 1) [educational
MMOG]. Available from https://www.radixendeavor.org/.
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer
science education: impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation.
Computers & Education, 52(1), 1e12.
Pasin, F., & Giroux, H. (2011). The impact of a simulation game on operations
management education. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1240e1254.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2013). Education for life and work: Developing
transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, &
R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48e73). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ranchhod, A., Gur au, C., Loukis, E., & Trivedi, R. (2014). Evaluating the educational
effectiveness of simulation games: a value generation model. Information Sci-
ences, 264, 75e90.
Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness
of games for educational purposes: a review of recent research. Simulation &
gaming, 23(3), 261e276.
Reychav, I., & Wu, D. (2014). Exploring mobile tablet training for road safety: a uses
and gratifications perspective. Computers & Education, 71, 43e55.
Robertson, J. (2012). Making games in the classroom: benefits and gender concerns.
Computers & Education, 59(2), 385e398.
Ruggiero, D., & Watson, W. R. (2014). Engagement through praxis in educational
game design common threads. Simulation & Gaming, 45(4e5), 471e490.
Ryu, H., & Parsons, D. (2012). Risky business or sharing the load?eSocial flow in
collaborative mobile learning. Computers & Education, 58(2), 707e720.
S
anchez, J., & Olivares, R. (2011). Problem solving and collaboration using mobile
serious games. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1943e1952.
Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support
learning. Computer games and instruction, 55(2), 503e524.
van der Spek, E. D., & van Oostendorp, H. (2013). Introducing surprising events can
stimulate deep learning in a serious game. British journal of educational tech-
nology, 44(1), 156e169.
Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent
58 M. Qian, K.R. Clark / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 50e58
Games & Simulation, 2(1), 49e62.
Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: what happens when video games enter the
classroom? Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(6), 5.
Squire, K. (2011). Video games and Learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the
digital age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Squire, K., & Dikkers, S. (2011). Amplifications of learning: use of mobile media
devices among youth. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into
New Media Technologies, 18(4), 445e464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1354856511429646.
Steinkuehler, C. (2008). Massively multiplayer online games as an educational
technology: an outline for research. Educational Technology, 48(1), 10e21.
Tennyson, R. D., & Breuer, K. (2002). Improving problem solving and creativity
through use of complex-dynamic simulations. Computers in Human Behavior,
18(6), 650e668.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Twining, P. (2009). Exploring the educational potential of virtual worlds e some
reflections from the Schome Park Programme. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 40(3), 496e514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2009.00963.x.
Twining, P. (2010). Virtual worlds and education. Educational Research, 52(2),
117e122.
Van Eck, R. (2012, November 5). 21st century skills and games based learning.
Retrieved from Games Based Learning: http://www.games-based-learning.
com/2012/11/21st-century-skills-and-games-based.html.
Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (2002). The effect of competition and contextualized
advisement on the transfer of mathematics skills a computer-based instruc-
tional simulation game. Educational Technology Research and Development,
50(3), 23e41.
Villalta, M., Gajardo, I., Nussbaum, M., Andreu, J. J., Echeverría, A., & Plass, J. L. (2011).
Design guidelines for classroom multiplayer presential games (CMPG). Com-
puters & Education, 57(3), 2039e2053.
Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M.
(2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: a meta-
analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229e243.
Vos, N., van der Meijden, H., & Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of constructing versus
playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy
use. Computers & Education, 56(1), 127e137.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wolfe, J. (1997). The effectiveness of business games in strategic management
course work. Simulation & Gaming, 28(4), 360e376.
Wu, W. H., Chiou, W. B., Kao, H. Y., Hu, C. H. A., & Huang, S. H. (2012b). Re-exploring
game-assisted learning research: the perspective of learning theoretical bases.
Computers & Education, 59(4), 1153e1161.
Wu, W. H., Hsiao, H. C., Wu, P. L., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012a). Investigating the
learning theory foundations of game based learning: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 265e279.
Yang, Y. T. C. (2012b). Building virtual cities, inspiring intelligent citizens: digital
games for developing students’ problem solving and learning motivation.
Computers & Education, 59(2), 365e377.
Yang, Y. T. C., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Empowering students through digital game
authorship: enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achieve-
ment. Computers & Education, 68, 334e344.
Yang, Y. T. C., & Wu, W. C. I. (2012a). Digital storytelling for enhancing student ac-
ademic achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: a year-long
experimental study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 339e352.
Yen, J. C., & Lee, C. Y. (2011). Exploring problem solving patterns and their impact on
learning achievement in a blended learning environment. Computers & Edu-
cation, 56(1), 138e145.
Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., et al. (2012). Our
princess is in another castle: a review of trends in serious gaming for education.
Review of Educational Research, 82, 61e89.