Chemistry Education
Research and Practice
Published on 28 October 2025
Licence and permissions
REVIEW ARTICLE
Cite this: Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,
2026, 27, 31
A systematic literature review of game-based
approaches in chemistry education (2014–2024)
Sule Elmali,
*a Luzia Freund
b
and Rüdiger Tiemann
c
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
Received 7th July 2025,
Accepted 26th October 2025
DOI: 10.1039/d5rp00248f
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
rsc.li/cerp
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 gamebased 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
a
Faculty of Education, Sakarya University, Sakarya, 54300, Turkey.
E-mail: suleelmali@sakarya.edu.tr
b
Emmy-Noether-Gymnasium, Pablo-Neruda-Straße 6-7, Berlin, 12559, Germany.
E-mail: luzia.freund@schule.berlin.de
c
Chemistry Education Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, 12489,
Germany. E-mail: ruediger.tiemann@hu-berlin.de
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
(GBL), gamification and serious games often come to the fore
(Martı́-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
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44 | 31
Review Article
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 (selfdetermination 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
32 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
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 (Martı́-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 (Martı́-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 gamebased 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,
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
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 gamebased 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 problemsolving 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
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Review Article
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 gamebased 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,
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44 | 33
Review Article
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
Table 1
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
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.
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
Inclusion and exclusion criteria or contributions
No. Criteria
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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.
The study must involve participants aged between 10 and 19. This age range should be specified in the title, abstract, or full text.
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.
The study must be written in English.
The publication date must be between 2014 and 2024 (inclusive).
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.
The study must present new empirical data. Theoretical or historical papers, or those that only summarize previous research findings, are
excluded.
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.
34 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Table 2
Review Article
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’’)
(‘‘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’’)
(‘‘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’’)
2
3
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.
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.
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.
Findings
Screening process
Game-based approaches used in chemistry education
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
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.
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
Table 3
Database
Scopus
Web of
science
ERIC
Number of results obtained according to search strings
Results for
search string 1
Results for
search string 2
Results for
search string 3
Total
results
232
196
79
70
48
41
359
307
68
29
23
120
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44 | 35
Review Article
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Table 4
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram outlining the screening process.
Distribution of game-based approaches used in chemistry education
Game-based approach
Number of papers (n)
Percentage (%)
Game-based learning
Gamification
Serious games
Total
35
15
2
52
67.3
28.9
3.8
100
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 gamebased 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
Fig. 2
Distribution of game-based chemistry education studies by years.
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.
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
36 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44
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
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Review Article
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.
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
Table 5 Distribution of game-based approaches according to academic
achievement variable
Game approach
Number of papers (n)
Percentage (%)
Game based learning
Gamification
Serious games
Total
20
17
—
37
54.1
45.9
0.0
100
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.
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, selfregulation, 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)
Fig. 3 Distribution of the game approaches in terms of academic
achievement variable (n = 37).
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Game approach
Number of papers (n)
Percentage
Game-based learning (GBL)
Gamification
Serious games
Total
12
4
1
17
70.6%
23.5%
5.9%
100%
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44 | 37
Review Article
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Table 7 Distribution
approaches (n = 15)
Fig. 4 Distribution of the game approaches with respect to motivation
variable (n = 17).
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.
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,
38 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44
of
engagement
according
to
game-based
Game approach
Number of papers (n)
Percentage
Game-based learning (GBL)
Gamification
Serious games
Total
10
3
2
15
66.7%
20.0%
13.3%
100%
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.
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
Fig. 5 Distribution of the game approaches in terms of motivation and
engagement variables (n = 15).
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
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
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Review Article
(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 inquirybased 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
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44 | 39
Review Article
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.
40 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
References
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.
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.
Alsaqqaf A., and Li F. W., (2022), Gamifying experiential learning theory, International Conference on Web-Based Learning,
Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 16–28.
Axelson R. D., and Flick A., (2010), Defining student engagement, Change, 43(1), 38–43.
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.
Banfield J. and Wilkerson B., (2014), Increasing student intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy through gamification pedagogy, Contemp. Issues Educ. Res., 7(4), 291–298.
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.
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.
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.
Bosch J., (2015), Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Lernmotivation in der Schule, Potsdamer Zentrum für empirische Inklusionsforschung (ZEIF), 3, 1–9, available at: https://www.unipotsdam.de/fileadmin/projects/inklusion/PDFs/ZEIF-Blog/
Bosch_2015_Lernmotivation.pdf (accessed 4 April 2025).
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.
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).
Brown C. L., Comunale M. A., Wigdahl B. and UrdanetaHartmann 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.
Cadiz G. S., Lacre G. J. R., Delamente R. L. and Diquito T. J. A.,
(2023), Game-based learning approach in science education:
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
a meta-analysis, Int. J. Soc. Sci. Human Res., 6(3), 1856–1865,
DOI: 10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i3-61.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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://chemr
xiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/
680b5e71927d1c2e66b77e56 (accessed 30 June 2025).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Review Article
into g-butyrolactone over Pd-Re/SiO2, Catal. Lett., 151(6),
1821–1833, DOI: 10.1007/s10562-020-03433-3.
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.
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.
Fraga-Varela F., Vila-Couñago E., and Martı́nez-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/s10734014-9720-6.
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.
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.14678535.2010.01122.x.
Jiménez-Valverde G., Fabre-Mitjans N., Heras-Paniagua C. and
Guimerà-Ballesta G., (2025), Tailoring gamification in a
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44 | 41
Review Article
science course to enhance intrinsic motivation in preservice
primary teachers, Educ. Sci., 15(3), 1–23, DOI: 10.3390/
educsci15030300.
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.
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/educsci
11010022.
Karagiorgas D. N. and Niemann S., (2017), Gamification and
game-based learning, J. Educ. Technol. Syst., 45(4), 499–519,
DOI: 10.1177/0047239516665105.
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.
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/s10639023-11585-z.
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.
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.
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/s40692-0170095-4.
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.
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.
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.
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.
42 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
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.
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).
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).
Li C. T., Hou H. T. and Lin W. S., (2024), Chemistry education
board game based on cognitive mechanism: multidimensional evaluation of learners’ knowledge acquisition,
flow and playing experience of board game materials, Res.
Sci. Technol. Educ., 42(3), 699–719, DOI: 10.1080/02635
143.2022.2125505.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Martı́-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.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J. and Altman D. G., (2009),
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses: the PRISMA statement, PLoS Med., 6(7), e1000097,
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
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 metaanalysis, Rev. Eur. Stud., 14(2), 32–46, DOI: 10.5539/
res.v14n2p32.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pollock A. and Berge E., (2018), How to do a systematic review,
Int. J. Stroke, 13(2), 138–156, DOI: 10.1177/1747493017743796.
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.
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.
Richter G., Raban D. R. and Rafaeli S., (2014), Studying gamification: the effect of rewards and incentives on motivation,
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Review Article
Gamification in Education and Business, Cham: Springer
International Publishing, pp. 21–46.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Susi T., Johannesson M. and Backlund P., (2007), Serious
games: an overview (Technical Report HS-IKI-TR-07-001),
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44 | 43
Review Article
University of Skövde, School of Humanities and Informatics,
https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:2416/FULL
TEXT01.pdf.
Swacha J., (2021), State of research on gamification in education: a
bibliometric survey, Educ. Sci., 11(2), 69, DOI: 10.3390/
educsci11020069.
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.
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.
Trowler V., (2010), Student engagement literature review, High.
Educ. Acad., 11(1), 1–15.
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.
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.
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.
44 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2026, 27, 31–44
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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