Next Article in Journal
Protect the Children, Body and Soul
Previous Article in Journal
Gender, Equity, and Science Writing: Examining Differences in Undergraduate Life Science Majors’ Attitudes toward Writing Lab Reports
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/educsci14030281
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Serious Games in Higher Education in the Transforming Process to Education 4.0—Systematized Review

by
Lea C. Brandl
* and
Andreas Schrader
Institute of Telematics, University of Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562 Luebeck, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(3), 281; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030281
Submission received: 15 January 2024 / Revised: 27 February 2024 / Accepted: 2 March 2024 / Published: 7 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Higher Education)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The digital transformation associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution is having an impact on the way we teach. Under the term Education 4.0, new teaching methods, new technologies, as well as a student-centered approach, are expected to be used in teaching. One established method of teaching is the use of Serious Games, as it has various positive effects in terms of motivation and engagement. This paper deals with the question of how the transformation towards Education 4.0 influences the way Serious Games are designed and used in the context of higher education. To this end, a systematized literature review was conducted. Out of 550 publications, 28 were included. This revealed works on the general conception as well as studies on Serious Games in various areas of university teaching. The results show different concepts of Serious Games, with the structure often being adapted to learning content and not to students. In terms of technical implementation, Serious Games are mostly web- or desktop-applications instead of new technologies such as VR. As a result, new concepts seem necessary to adapt Serious Games to Education 4.0. In the future, we want to design Serious Games that respond flexibly to students’ needs and make it easy to integrate new technologies.

1. Introduction

Education, like other areas of our society, is subject to social change. In the 18th century, Education 1.0 developed alongside the First Industrial Revolution, with the lecturer at the center and learners assuming a predominantly passive role [1]. The second industrial revolution was succeeded by Education 2.0, which also centered on the lecturer, albeit with learners assuming a more active role [1]. This was succeeded by Education 3.0, which was characterized by computerization. Teachers were no longer at the forefront, but instead curated courses that empowered learners to educate themselves independently [1]. In recent years, the renewed transformation of industry has brought about a further changes in education, encapsulated by the term Education 4.0 [1]. This transformation is characterized by technological advancements enabling digitalization, virtualization, datafication, and smartification [2]. It entails a shift from teacher-centered to student-centered teaching and from passive to active learning [3].
The term Education 4.0 is defined differently depending on the perspective. Based on the new industrial revolution to Industry 4.0, Education 4.0 should provide resources to develop skills for this [4]. Miranda et al. [1] see other components in addition to this, such as the integration of new teaching methods as well as the implementation of current and new information and communication technologies as well as the use of new infrastructure to improve learning processes. They and other authors see the term in connection with new teaching–learning methods of active learning and innovative pedagogical procedures [1,2].
Challenges thus appear in the context of higher education with regard to new technologies, large amounts of data, and innovations in teaching and its secure infrastructure [5,6]. Furthermore, changes in the structure of higher education appear to be emerging. In the future, students will determine for themselves the content they wish to experience, and when and how. This shift leads to the development of new curricula and methods such as the Flipped Classroom or collaborative project work [7,8].
Considering that Abt [9] defined the term Serious Games as early as 1971, it can be assumed that the utilization of Serious Games in university teaching precedes the era of digitalization and Education 4.0. Although the term Education 4.0 was coined in 2015, the scientific literature only increasingly refers to it from 2018 onward [10]. Nevertheless, it can be inferred that the introduction of new teaching methods influences the utilization and design of already existing methods. One such method is the use of Serious Games. Abt [9] conceptualizes Serious Games as a fusion of serious thinking and problem-solving with the experimental and emotional freedom of gaming [9]. Chen and Michel define Serious Games as games whose main purpose is not entertainment, fun, or pleasure [11]. In education, they can prompt students to engage with content for longer durations compared to other teaching formats and can have a motivating effect on them [12,13,14]. Backlund and Hendrix [15] also report mostly positive effects on problem-solving skills, learning impact, and motivation to learn.
A concept that has been addressing the digitalization and technical equipment of universities for some time is that of the Pervasive University. This concept pertains to the development of a personalized technical infrastructure that remains partially unnoticed by the user, thereby avoiding technical barriers and disruptions [16]. For this reason, the concept seems to share certain similarities with the field of Education 4.0, particularly in focus on the user and integration of new technologies into the university environment. Lucke et al. [17] have already considered the use of Serious Games in this context and cite a few examples. However, these examples do not fully incorporate the possibilities of the Pervasive University or Education 4.0 but instead concentrate on the user’s location.
In consideration of the use of new teaching methods, and the use of new technologies, as well as already known initial projects in research areas with similarities to Education 4.0, the following research questions arise and will be discussed in this paper:
F1  
To what extent are Serious Games used in the transformation phase to Education 4.0, and how are they implemented and evaluated?
F2  
In which ways are the scope and processes of Serious Games in line with the changes resulting from Education 4.0?
Almeida and Simoes [18] investigated the role of Serious Games in Education 4.0 through projects funded as part of a Portuguese initiative on Education 4.0. They identified three projects that incorporated Serious Games into the learning process. In their subsequent analysis, the integration of Serious Games with Industry 4.0 tools and gamification was explored, rendering the research questions posed in this study unanswerable. No further studies on Serious Games in connection with Education 4.0 were located. Due to this lack of related work, a systematized review was conducted to address these questions. The included results were analyzed regarding their concepts, with particular attention given to the areas of application, implementation, and evaluation methods.

2. Methods

The field of Serious Games is highly heterogeneous, encompassing publications ranging from game presentations to studies addressing various research questions. Therefore, there are no exclusion criteria for articles as long as they explicitly address Serious Games and university teaching. Since the focus of the research question is on game implementation rather than specific outcomes, creating categories based on the quality or outcomes of evaluations is not primarily relevant. Instead, this work provides an overview of the research field without combining the outcomes of different interventions in a meta-study format. Due to this and a lack of overviews of Serious Games in Education 4.0, a systematized review methodology was chosen. This methodology enables a systematic and structured search but has limitations in terms of the number of databases and researchers involved [19].
To answer the research questions F1 and F2, MDPI journals were scanned and the ACM database was consulted. The former was chosen due to its broad range of research fields and the latter due to its digital focus. In addition, open-access journals from the fields of education and serious gaming were searched. The Journal of Medical Internet Research—Serious Games, the Journal of Computers and Education, the Journal of Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, the International Journal of Educational Research, the International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, the International Journal of STEM Education, and the Journal of Smart Learning Environments were scanned. Except for the Journal of Medical Internet Research, which was specifically sought, these journals were identified through a brief Internet search using the term Open Access Higher Education Journals. They were included because they are open access with reputable publishers, are related to the topic of higher education, and the authors encountered content related to Serious Games during an initial scan of articles. The first-listed journal was included because it was already known to the authors as a suitable journal from previous research.
When an advanced search option was available, all articles annotated with the keywords serious game and education were included. In journals focusing on education where no advanced search was possible, the search was for serious game or serious games.
To scan publications starting from the noticeable increase in publications in the field of Education 4.0, papers dating back to 1 July 2018 were included where possible, with the search limited to this period. The search was conducted on 13 July 2023 and updated on 16 February 2024. No protocol for this research has been published previously. The results of the searches were integrated into Ryyan [20] as a BibTeX file and managed using the tool.
A total of 550 publications were found, and their abstracts were scanned by one researcher. Every article dealing with Serious Games in higher education was included in the results. Other articles were excluded due to their focus or other reasons, as indicated in Figure 1. The result set includes a protocol for a scoping review by Gomez and Saurez [21] on the topic of serious gaming in higher education. Gomez and Suarez aimed to include work published in this subject area since 2002 in their review. As no corresponding review by the authors has been published to date, only 28 results could be included.

3. Results

The publications of Antanova et al. [23], Baalsrud Hauge et al. [24], Gorsic et al. [25], and Jaccard et al. [26] deal not with a specific Serious Game but explore the field at a meta level. One publication reports on the design of a framework for collaborative design of Serious Games. The goal is to develop any kind of Serious Game collaboratively. To this aim, the tool provides 23 blocks that can be used to work out the design decisions of assessment, game design, context and goals, mechanics, and learning design [26].
Another publication reports on research regarding teaching methods and game preferences. The authors report that students benefit most from practical lessons in the context of teaching. Lecturers should introduce the video games and give students the opportunity to learn to play themselves. It is important for students to be able to solve tasks using logic and analysis. Competition or rivalry is viewed negatively [23].
Baalsrud Hauge et al. look more closely at the facilitation skills of instructors when conducting Serious Games. They analyzed literature, field reports, and survey results. They conclude that there is no complete competency model for game facilitators and there is no formal training to become a game facilitator. It is important that the game facilitator is knowledgeable in the domain as well as the game and the technologies used. Digital tools or artificially intelligent agents can support the lecturer in the role of the moderator [24].
The interaction between two players is what Gorsic et al. want to explore. In their paper, they report the validation of a questionnaire that measures the verbal interaction between players of a Serious Game. The developed questionnaire could be used in the future to measure user experience in cooperative or competitive games [25].
The remaining 24 papers, shown in Table 1, report Serious Games, and 20 describe an evaluation or study related to the presented game. The presented games differ in game objective, game elements and technology used, and evaluation.

3.1. Serious Game Objective

The focus of 15 of these games is to teach knowledge. This knowledge is located in the areas of computer science (n = 6), medicine (n = 4), pharmacy (n = 1), the environment (n = 1), engineering (n = 1), logistics (n = 1), and mathematics (n = 1). It is noteworthy that in the fields of the environment and pharmacy, the same game is presented in two articles each. It is noticeable that the focus of the work is not always on achieving the objective of the game, i.e., imparting knowledge. For example, Antoniou et al. [42] use their game to impart medical knowledge, to evaluate physiological parameters, and to explore emotions during learning using virtual reality. The work aims to provide feedback based on the emotional state. The other games in this area have the purpose of motivating or engaging students [32,33,41,43,45,48], or increasing the learning effect [29,30,33,35,37,38,39,40,46,47,48].
The game from the field of pharmacy and the one from the field of logistics, in addition to the goal of imparting knowledge, also pursue the goal of enhancing teamwork [38,45,46]. The game presented by Ammouriova et al. requires solving challenges in teams and thus calls for leadership and task management skills [38]. In the case of the game for pharmacy students, a real pharmacy is simulated. Supported by team-building activities and coaching, students should learn to work together and communicate in an interdisciplinary way [45,46]. A game that focuses on teamwork is presented by Wong et al. Here, too, interprofessional collaboration is to be promoted with the help of a simulation [44].
The remaining six games, which do not aim to teach knowledge, are aimed at teaching other soft skills. One game has the goal of teaching engineering students how to solve design and manufacturing problems in virtual reality, since this is a skills gap of undergratude students [36]. Conversely, the game FLIGBY is designed to teach entrepreneurs a leadership style that enables employees to work in an optimal mental state. Therefore, the students work in interdisciplinary teams and have to solve conflicts and communicate [49]. Teaching non-technical skills is the focus of the remaining games. Deniozou et al. [27] aim to teach students to take better notes. The game Compete! is about making decisions that improve one’s soft skills like creative problem solving, stress management, and communication, as well as teamwork [28]. Two games impart knowledge about SCRUM, a procedure that structures the development of software in teams. Steghöfer and Burden [34] focus on teaching the necessary knowledge and skills, while Gordillo et al. [50] use and compare different methods for teaching.

3.2. Implementation

The majority of the games (n = 8) use simulations to achieve the game goal. Two of these games additionally use points [44,45,46]. Points are awarded in seven other games, but never without using an additional game element [27,32,35,37,39,41,50]. Similarly, the element of challenge is mostly used in combination with other elements [27,28,31,35,37,38,39,40,49]. Only in one of the nine games, the one from the logistics area, are challenges exclusively used as an element [38]. Five of the games employ puzzles [27,28,30,31,32], three use surprising or random elements [29,39,41], two use ranks [28,32], and two character advancement [28,41]. One game uses rewards and hidden content [40]. Another applies badges [32]. In one of the games, players are manually evaluated by lecturers [28]. The game GidgetML is characterized by using artifical intelligence to adapt the game content to the player [31].
Mini-games within the game are used in three games [28,40,50]. One game is designed as a quiz [33], another as a story-driven adventure [40], one as a strategic board game [41], and one in the IT security domain as a tower defense game [29]. The distribution of the elements across the individual games can be seen in Table 1.
Most articles do not explain why a mechanic was chosen but focus on the presentation of the game or the rules. Often rewards are understood as state-of-the-art and used because they fit the concept of the game. Espinha Gasiba et al. [35] explain that the decision to use a competitive design was made because this approach had led to higher motivation and engagement in previous studies.
The implementation of the games is realized differently. The majority of the games are realized as a desktop computer game (n = 7) or online or web app (n = 9). Apart from games outside a specific subject area, desktop games are mostly used in the field of medicine [27,40,41,43], while online/web app games are often used in computer science [29,30,33,34,35]. Two games describe a setup where teams work with computers but the game takes place in presence [24,45,46]. The game in the field of pharmacy especially stands out because actors are used for the simulation and only realistic software is used for the activities in the pharmacy [45,46]. Augmented, mixed, or virtual reality is used by four games in the area of computer science [32,50], medicine [42], and engineering [36]. More than half of the games (n = 15) are designed for single players, eight for multiple players. Most of the articles describe cooperative games in which players have to work together in teams. The game The Island from the field of environmental awareness and the game from the field of pharmacy have a competitive character with competing teams [45,46,47]. The game from the field of computer science with a focus on IT security was planned as a singleplayer game, but has developed into a cooperative multiplayer game through agreements between players [35]. The game for learning anatomy is the only one that turns out to be exclusively competitive [41].

3.3. Evaluation

Various evaluation methods and study objectives are reported in the publications. Both Peña Miguel et al. and Saitua-Iribar et al. investigate whether the use of the Serious Game on environmental awareness impacts on different competencies of the players [47,48]. Peña Miguel et al. conclude that the game can promote competencies such as anticipation, systematic thinking, problem-solving, and critical thinking [47]. Saitua-Iribar et al. note that the game influences the knowledge level but not perceived meaningfulness [48]. Perrin et al. also report that students find the SUPER HEMO game helpful in acquiring knowledge. Furthermore, they report that the use of multimedia and mini-games has a positive impact on game enjoyment [40]. Similarly, students who tried a data-driven IT game reported an increase in knowledge in various areas of IT security [29]. In the same subject area, a game with challenges was reported as an adequate means of imparting knowledge [35]. However, it should be mentioned that all studies were conducted without a control group and were partially based on students’ self-assessment. A study with a control group among students of a programming course shows that an adaptive game can have positive effects on motivation and continuous performance [31].
Fens et al. [46] examine how a non-digitally designed Serious Game can be integrated into the lecture curriculum using the example of a pharmacy course. The authors find that the game was offered by the majority of universities as a stand-alone mandatory course. Students are usually assessed in teams and as individuals. Depending on the exact learning objectives of the universities (see Section 3.1), varying amounts of capacity were used to deliver the game [46]. They investigated how students evaluate courses in which Serious Games are used and a positive evaluation was found [45,46]. Regardless of the course, other studies also found positive evaluations towards the use of Serious Games. In this context, students consider the learning effect through the game to be given and perceive an increase in motivation [32]. However, the expectations of Serious Games seem to depend on the game experience of the students, as shown by the results of Cook-Chennault et al. [37].
Regarding motivation, Buijs-Spanjers et al. [43] addressed whether and why students choose to intentionally make a decision within the game with negative consequences for the simulation. Reasons for the decision were, besides a different game experience, the interest in the simulation results based on their decision [43].
Games whose serious goal is to teach skills are considered by the authors to be helpful in terms of the game goal. An online Serious Game is described by Steghöfer and Burden as an effective teaching method for the SCRUM method [34]. The same is true for the game to improve the ability to take good notes [27]. FLIGBY enabled self-assessment and training of students’ management skills [49].
Using virtual and augmented reality in the field of Serious Games is described as positive for the learning goal. Advantages are described with regard to various learning processes in the fields of medicine and computer science. In both studies, however, the interplay between the learning experience and students’ emotions is pointed out [32,42]. When comparing a virtual reality game with another game-based method, Gordillo et al. demonstrated that students with the virtual reality game were able to achieve the same level of knowledge of SCRUM as the comparison group, despite having a lower level of knowledge before the intervention.

4. Discussion

The results reveal a heterogeneous landscape of Serious Games in university teaching. On the one hand, the areas of application and objectives vary, while on the other hand, the articles present markedly different concepts. This diversity is especially apparent in the mechanics utilized. The findings indicate that game designs often align with the serious objectives while the playful aspects are typically crafted at the developers’ discretion, ensuring consistency in the game rules. In some instances, games were modeled after existing non-Serious Games, such as Minetest [34]. Customization of games can facilitate goal achievement, highlighting the advantage of developing Serious Games in interdisciplinary teams [51,52,53]. Furthermore, the articles demonstrate positive outcomes in their respective studies. Notably, the observed increases in motivation, learning effects, and the transfer of new knowledge or soft skills are consistent with previous research [15,54]. Insights from evaluations employing varied questions should inform the future design of Serious Games, particularly regarding the integration of multimedia and consideration of students’ emotional states. These aspects are pertinent within the context of Education 4.0 [1,2,5,55].

4.1. Serious Games in Education 4.0

In the focus of the first research question (F1), it could be summarized that the majority of publications directly address specific Serious Games. These games often deal with teaching knowledge or skills. The evaluation of the games varies regarding heterogeneous research questions. Evaluation questionnaires are often used, which are filled out by the students. The games are frequently developed for a specific context and precisely tailored to this context. The game elements, as well as the mechanics, are used in such a way as to support the player in achieving the goal of the Serious Game. Because they are tied to one domain, the game content cannot be adapted to different topics. Technologically, the games are usually implemented in such a way that they can be used on a standard computer. Mechanics and game design are diverse and seem to be geared more toward the game or teaching content than toward the preferences of the students or the types of players among them.
This allows the following conclusions to be drawn with regard to the second research question (F2): The use of Serious Games is a flexibly applicable method that does not contradict the basic idea of Education 4.0. First, the results of the work presented on the meta-level allow the conclusion that future work is still in progress, as they suggest planning and implementing games in an interdisciplinary manner and with digital support. The games presented, which aim to teach soft skills such as teamwork or the ability to take better notes, convey values that are very much in line with the idea of Education 4.0 [1,2,56] Especially, the fact that most multiplayer games are cooperative shows the opportunity of Serious Games to train teamwork, maybe in interdisciplinary teams. The use of web-based or desktop games, which are not used in face-to-face courses, corresponds to the flexibility that students have to decide freely on the design of their curriculum. However, games that take place in the classroom and may require additional resources such as actors only allow flexible design to a limited extent, as these resources are not available in unlimited quantities. Multiplayer games also seem to limit this flexibility, but it can be assumed that universities can have a sufficient number of students to enable these games despite a free choice of curriculum. The combination of players from different disciplines in a game could even further promote the ability to work in an interdisciplinary manner. In terms of the use of new digital technologies, only four games that use augmented, virtual, or mixed reality stand out. This could be due to the fact that these technologies are hard to scale. It remains to be seen to what extent the use of new technologies will become established in the university and private environment of students. If such devices are widely available, high scalability could also be realized for virtual reality applications or similar. Large-scale investigations often use highly scalable technologies, as can be seen here in the example of “The Island”, which is implemented as a desktop game. Another example is the work of Barbieri et al., which uses a mobile app for a study with over 400 participants [57]. An example of the additional effort with resources that are difficult to scale is the pharmacy game. Fens et al. [46] report on the various factors that led to differences between the facilities in the experiment, as the game setup is not copyable as an identical setup. Nevertheless, the use of new technologies is an aspect that is often associated with Education 4.0 [1,5]. Due to the change in industry alone, universities should adapt to the standard of the technologies used there. In addition, mixed reality technologies are increasingly being used in leisure games, which could lead to students also expecting them in Serious Games. In the context of Education 4.0, the concept of adaptive games such as GidgetML is particularly interesting. The design of the game adapted to users reflects the idea that learning content is tailored to students and that they are supported in their freedom of choice in designing the curriculum. The results of the presented studies, which do not deal with a specific Serious Game, as well as elements from the presented Serious Games, will be used in future for further research by the authors to design Serious Games that are flexibly suitable for different learning content as well as can be individually adapted to the students. For example, games that can represent any existing online exercise and adapt flexibly to the type of player and the level of knowledge of the student.
In addition, it should be noted that the objectives of the studies presented mostly concern the evaluation of the gaming experience, the learning effect, or investigations into the motivation of the students. Only one study deals with the effect of an adaptive game as part of a study with a control group. To further investigate the results already collected, the authors plan to conduct randomized controlled trials in future studies and look at the same outcome variables.

4.2. Limitations

As this paper presents a systematized search, there are limitations regarding the search methodology. Initially, only two databases and a few journals were included. The latter resulted from a brief Internet search, thus limiting the examination to a specific subset of current findings. This limitation is also evident in the focus on specific game specializations, which may have been influenced by the search design.
Furthermore, the review and results analysis were conducted by a single person, leading to uncontrolled quality in inclusion decisions and precluding the calculation of reliability. Conducting a more comprehensive search using additional keywords would likely yield further results and should be undertaken as part of a systematic literature search.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.C.B. and A.S.; Methodology, L.C.B.; Formal Analysis, L.C.B.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, L.C.B.; Writing—Review & Editing, A.S.; Supervision, A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Miranda, J.; Navarrete, C.; Noguez, J.; Molina-Espinosa, J.M.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S.; Navarro-Tuch, S.A.; Bustamante-Bello, M.R.; Rosas-Fernández, J.B.; Molina, A. The Core Components of Education 4.0 in Higher Education: Three Case Studies in Engineering Education. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2021, 93, 107278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ramírez-Montoya, M.S.; Castillo-Martínez, I.M.; Sanabria-Z, J.; Miranda, J. Complex Thinking in the Framework of Education 4.0 and Open Innovation—A Systematic Literature Review. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tang, S.; Long, M.; Tong, F.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Sutton-Jones, K.L. A Comparative Study of Problem-Based Learning and Traditional Approaches in College English Classrooms: Analyzing Pedagogical Behaviors Via Classroom Observation. Behav. Sci. 2020, 10, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mourtzis, D.; Vlachou, E.; Dimitrakopoulos, G.; Zogopoulos, V. Cyber- Physical Systems and Education 4.0—The Teaching Factory 4.0 Concept. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 23, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bonfield, C.A.; Salter, M.; Longmuir, A.; Benson, M.; Adachi, C. Transformation or evolution?: Education 4.0, teaching and learning in the digital age. High. Educ. Pedagog. 2020, 5, 223–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jisc. Horizons Report—Emerging Technologies and the Mental Health Challenge—Jisc; Report of JISC, an UK Digital, Data and Technology Agency. 2019. Available online: https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/7284/1/horizons-report-spring-2019.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2023).
  7. Aziz Hussin, A. Education 4.0 Made Simple: Ideas For Teaching. Int. J. Educ. Lit. Stud. 2018, 6, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fisk, P. Education 4.0 … the Future of Learning Will Be Dramatically Different, in School and throughout Life. 2017. Available online: https://www.peterfisk.com/2017/01/future-education-young-everyone-taught-together/ (accessed on 6 December 2023).
  9. Abt, C.C. Ernste Spiele: Lernen Durch Gespielte Wirklichkeit; Kiepenheuer & Witsch: Cologne, Germany, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  10. Costan, E.; Gonzales, G.; Gonzales, R.; Enriquez, L.; Costan, F.; Suladay, D.; Atibing, N.; Aro, J.L.; Evangelista, S.; Maturan, F.; et al. Education 4.0 in Developing Economies: A Systematic Literature Review of Implementation Barriers and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Michael, D.R.; Chen, S.L. Serious Games: Games That Educate, Train, and Inform; Thomson Course Technology: Boston, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  12. Boeker, M.; Andel, P.; Vach, W.; Frankenschmidt, A. Game-Based E-Learning Is More Effective than a Conventional Instructional Method: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Third-Year Medical Students. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e82328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Faiella, F.; Ricciardi, M. Gamification and learning: A review of issues and research. J. e-Learn. Knowl. Soc. 2015, 11, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Susi, T.; Johannesson, M.; Backlund, P. Serious Games—An Overview; Technical Report HS-IKI-TR-07-001; School of Humanities and Informatics University of Skövde: Skövde, Sweden, 2007; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  15. Backlund, P.; Hendrix, M. Educational games—Are they worth the effort? A literature survey of the effectiveness of serious games. In Proceedings of the 2013 5th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-GAMES), Pole, UK, 11–13 September 2013; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tavangarian, D.; Lucke, U. Pervasive University—A Technical Perspective Die Pervasive University aus technischer Perspektive. IT Inf. Technol. 2009, 51, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lucke, U.; Rensing, C. A Survey on Pervasive Education. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 2014, 14, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Almeida, F.; Simoes, J. The Role of Serious Games, Gamification and Industry 4.0 Tools in the Education 4.0 Paradigm. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2019, 10, 120–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Grant, M.J.; Booth, A. A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2009, 26, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Gómez, R.L.; Suárez, A.M. Gaming to Succeed in College: Protocol for a Scoping Review of Quantitative Studies on the Design and Use of Serious Games for Enhancing Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 2021, 2, 100021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Haddaway, N.R.; Page, M.J.; Pritchard, C.C.; McGuinness, L.A. PRISMA2020: An R Package and Shiny App for Producing PRISMA 2020-Compliant Flow Diagrams, with Interactivity for Optimised Digital Transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2022, 18, e1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Antonova, A.; Bontchev, B.; Dankov, Y. How University Students in “Informatics and Computer Sciences’’ would like to Use Video Games for Learning. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech’22), New York, NY, USA, 17–18 June 2022; pp. 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Baalsrud Hauge, J.; Söbke, H.; Bröker, T.; Lim, T.; Luccini, M.A.; Kornevs, M.; Meijer, S. Current Competencies of Game Facilitators and Their Potential Optimization in Higher Education: Multimethod Study. JMIR Serious Games 2021, 9, e25481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gorsic, M.; Clapp, D.J.; Darzi, A.; Novak, D. A Brief Measure of Interpersonal Interaction for 2-Player Serious Games: Questionnaire Validation. JMIR Serious Games 2019, 7, e12788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jaccard, D.; Suppan, L.; Sanchez, E.; Huguenin, A.; Laurent, M. The co.LAB Generic Framework for Collaborative Design of Serious Games: Development Study. JMIR Serious Games 2021, 9, e28674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Deniozou, T.; Dima, M.; Cox, C. Designing a Game to Help Higher Education Students Develop Their Note-Taking Skills. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI), New York, NY, USA, 2–4 November 2020; pp. 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. McGowan, N.; López-Serrano, A.; Burgos, D. Serious Games and Soft Skills in Higher Education: A Case Study of the Design of Compete! Electronics 2023, 12, 1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Løvgren, D.E.H.; Li, J.; Oyetoyan, T.D. A data-driven security game to facilitate information security education. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings, Montreal, QC, Canada, 25–31 May 2019; pp. 256–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ünlü, K.; Ardıç, B.; Tüzün, E. CRSG: A serious game for teaching code review. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, New York, NY, USA, 8–13 November 2020; pp. 1561–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Miljanovic, M.A.; Bradbury, J.S. GidgetML: An adaptive serious game for enhancing first year programming labs. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training, New York, NY, USA, 27 June–19 July 2020; pp. 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lampropoulos, G.; Keramopoulos, E.; Diamantaras, K.; Evangelidis, G. Integrating Augmented Reality, Gamification, and Serious Games in Computer Science Education. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Malaise, Y.; Signer, B. King’s Scroll: An Educational Game to Practise Code Prediction. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2, New York, NY, USA, 15–18 March 2023; p. 1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Steghöfer, J.P.; Burden, H. One block on top of the other: Using minetest to teach Scrum. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training, New York, NY, USA, 21–29 May 2022; pp. 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Espinha Gasiba, T.; Iosif, A.C.; Suppan, S.; Lechner, U.; Pinto-Albuquerque, M. Reflections on Training Next-Gen Industry Workforce on Secure Software Development. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Software Engineering Education, New York, NY, USA, 19–21 June 2023; ECSEE’23. pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhao, R.; Aqlan, F.; Elliott, L.J.; Lum, H.C. Developing a virtual reality game for manufacturing education. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, New York, NY, USA, 26–30 August 2019; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cook-Chennault, K.; Villanueva Alarcón, I.; Jacob, G. Usefulness of Digital Serious Games in Engineering for Diverse Undergraduate Students. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ammouriova, M.; Bertolini, M.; Castaneda, J.; Juan, A.A.; Neroni, M. A Heuristic-Based Simulation for an Education Process to Learn about Optimization Applications in Logistics and Transportation. Mathematics 2022, 10, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. González-Campos, J.S.; Arnedo-Moreno, J.; Sánchez-Navarro, J. GTCards: A Video Game for Learning Geometric Transformations: A cards-based video game for learning geometric transformations in higher education. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM’21), New York, NY, USA, 26–29 October 2021; pp. 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Perrin, J.; Meeus, A.; Broseus, J.; Morieux, P.J.; Di Ceglie, V.; Gravoulet, J.; D’Aveni, M. A Serious Game About Hematology for Health Care Workers (SUPER HEMO): Development and Validation Study. JMIR Serious Games 2023, 11, e40350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Tan, W.J.; Ng, B.K.; Mogali, R.S. An Exploratory Digital Board Game Approach to the Review and Reinforcement of Complex Medical Subjects Like Anatomical Education: Cross-sectional and Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Serious Games 2022, 10, e33282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Antoniou, E.P.; Arfaras, G.; Pandria, N.; Athanasiou, A.; Ntakakis, G.; Babatsikos, E.; Nigdelis, V.; Bamidis, P. Biosensor Real-Time Affective Analytics in Virtual and Mixed Reality Medical Education Serious Games: Cohort Study. JMIR Serious Games 2020, 8, e17823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Buijs-Spanjers, R.K.; Hegge, H.H.; Cnossen, F.; Jaarsma, A.D.; de Rooij, E.S. Reasons to Engage in and Learning Experiences From Different Play Strategies in a Web-Based Serious Game on Delirium for Medical Students: Mixed Methods Design. JMIR Serious Games 2020, 8, e18479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wong, Y.H.J.; Ko, J.; Nam, S.; Kwok, T.; Lam, S.; Cheuk, J.; Chan, M.; Lam, V.; Wong, C.G.T.; Ng, H.Z.L.; et al. Virtual ER, a Serious Game for Interprofessional Education to Enhance Teamwork in Medical and Nursing Undergraduates: Development and Evaluation Study. JMIR Serious Games 2022, 10, e35269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fens, T.; Dantuma-Wering, C.M.; Taxis, K. The Pharmacy Game-GIMMICS® a Simulation Game for Competency-Based Education. Pharmacy 2020, 8, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fens, T.; Hope, D.L.; Crawshaw, S.; Tommelein, E.; Dantuma-Wering, C.; Verdel, B.M.; Trečiokienė, I.; Solanki, V.; van Puijenbroek, E.P.; Taxis, K. The International Pharmacy Game: A Comparison of Implementation in Seven Universities World-Wide. Pharmacy 2021, 9, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Peña Miguel, N.; Corral Lage, J.; Mata Galindez, A. Assessment of the Development of Professional Skills in University Students: Sustainability and Serious Games. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Saitua-Iribar, A.; Corral-Lage, J.; Peña-Miguel, N. Improving Knowledge about the Sustainable Development Goals through a Collaborative Learning Methodology and Serious Game. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Buzady, Z.; Almeida, F. FLIGBY—A Serious Game Tool to Enhance Motivation and Competencies in Entrepreneurship. Informatics 2019, 6, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gordillo, A.; López-Fernández, D.; Mayor, J. Examining and Comparing the Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Serious Games and LEGO Serious Play for Learning Scrum. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rooney, P.; O’Rourke, K.C.; Burke, G.; MacNamee, B.; Igbrude, C. Cross-Disciplinary Approaches for Developing Serious Games in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications, Coventry, UK, 23–24 March 2009; pp. 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bellotti, F.; Berta, R.; Gloria, A.D. Designing Effective Serious Games: Opportunities and Challenges for Research. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) 2010, 5, 22–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Souza, J.G.R.D.; Prates, R.O.; Santos, H.A. End-User Game Development Environments for Educators: Analyzing Platforms. In Proceedings of the 22nd Brazilian Symposium on Games and Digital Entertainment, New York, NY, USA, 6–9 November 2024; pp. 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wouters, P.; Nimwegen, C.; Oostendorp, H.; Spek, E. A Meta-Analysis of the Cognitive and Motivational Effects of Serious Games. J. Educ. Psychol. 2013, 105, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hariharasudan, A.; Kot, S. A Scoping Review on Digital English and Education 4.0 for Industry 4.0. Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Salmon, G. May the Fourth Be with You: Creating Education 4.0. J. Learn. Dev. 2019, 6, 95–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Barbieri, G.G.; Barbieri, R.; Capone, R. Serious Games in High School Mathematics Lessons: An Embedded Case Study in Europe. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2021, 17, em1963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 14 00281 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA chart of included and excluded records. Created with PRISMA Flow Diagram [22].
Figure 1. PRISMA chart of included and excluded records. Created with PRISMA Flow Diagram [22].
Education 14 00281 g001
Table 1. Overview of the games represented in the results publications.
Table 1. Overview of the games represented in the results publications.
AuthorDomainGame-ElementsTechnologyGame-ObjectiveSingle/
Multiplayer
Deniozou et al. [27]DiversPuzzles, challenges, pointsDesktop gameSkillsSingleplayer
McGowan et al. [28]DiversChallenges, puzzles, scores, mini-games, rank advancementOnline/web appSkillsSingleplayer
Løvgren et al. [29]Computer scienceTower defense, challenges, surpriseOnline/web appKnowledgeSingleplayer
Ünlü et al. [30]Computer sciencePuzzlesOnline/web appKnowledgeSingleplayer
Miljanovic and Bradbury [31]Computer sciencePuzzles, challenges, adaptiveDesktop gameKnowledgeSingleplayer
Lampro- poulos et al. [32]Computer sciencePuzzles, points, badges, leaderboardAugmented realityKnowledgeSingleplayer
Malaise and Signer [33]Computer scienceQuizOnline/web appKnowledgeSingleplayer
Steghöfer und Burden [34]Computer scienceSimulationOnline/web appSkillsMultiplayer
Espinha Gasiba et al. [35]Computer scienceChallenges, pointsOnline/web appKnowledgeMultiplayer
Zhao et al. [36]EngineeringSimulationVirtual realitySkillsSingleplayer
Cook-Chennault et al. [37]EngineeringChallenges, pointsOnline/web appKnowledgeSingleplayer
Ammou- riova et al. [38]LogisticsChallengesMixed (also non-digital)Knowledge, TeamworkMultiplayer
González-Campos et al. [39]MathematicsChallenges, points, surpriseDesktop gameKnowledgeSingleplayer
Perrin et al. [40]MedicineStory-driven adventure, rewards, mini-games, challenges, hidden contentDesktop gameKnowledgeSingleplayer
Tan et al. [41]MedicineBoard game, strategy game, character development, surprise, pointsDesktop gameKnowledgeMultiplayer
Antoniou et al. [42]MedicineSimulationVirtual reality/ Mixed realityKnowledgeSingleplayer
Buijs-Spanjers et al. [43]MedicineSimulationDesktop gameKnowledgeSingleplayer
Wong et al. [44]MedicineSimulation, pointsOnline/web appTeamworkMultiplayer
Fens et al. [45], Fens et al. [46]PharmacySimulation, pointsMixed (also non-digital)Knowledge, TeamworkMultiplayer
Peña Miguel et al. [47], Saitua-Iribar et al. [48]Environmental awarenessSimulationDesktop gameKnowledgeMultiplayer
Buzady and Almeida [49]EntrepreneurshipSimulation, challengesOnline/web appSkillsSingleplayer
Gordillo et al. [50]Computer sciencePoints, mini-gamesVirtual reality and non-digitalSkillsSingleplayer
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Brandl, L.C.; Schrader, A. Serious Games in Higher Education in the Transforming Process to Education 4.0—Systematized Review. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030281

AMA Style

Brandl LC, Schrader A. Serious Games in Higher Education in the Transforming Process to Education 4.0—Systematized Review. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(3):281. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030281

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brandl, Lea C., and Andreas Schrader. 2024. "Serious Games in Higher Education in the Transforming Process to Education 4.0—Systematized Review" Education Sciences 14, no. 3: 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030281

APA Style

Brandl, L. C., & Schrader, A. (2024). Serious Games in Higher Education in the Transforming Process to Education 4.0—Systematized Review. Education Sciences, 14(3), 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030281

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop