Game-Based Learning Enhances Engagement and Comprehension in Undergraduate Architecture and Biology Education

Abstract

Background: Game-based learning (GBL) grounded in constructivist and experiential learning theories has emerged as a promising strategy to improve engagement, motivation, and knowledge retention in higher education, particularly within STEM disciplines. Methods: This mixed-methods study evaluated the impact of GBL on student engagement, self-efficacy, and knowledge retention in undergraduate biology and architecture courses—two fields where GBL remains underexplored. Results: Thirty-three students (age 19.6 ± 1.6 years) participated, with near-equal representation from biology (51.4%) and architecture (48.6%) majors. Following GBL implementation, students reported significantly higher levels of engagement, participation, and perceived retention (p < 0.0001; effect size V ≥ 0.43). Biology students demonstrated greater gains in engagement and retention, while architecture students showed stronger improvements in participation and self-confidence. Qualitative feedback highlighted GBL’s interactivity and enjoyability, though some students noted distractions and accountability as challenges. Conclusions: Despite limitations such as small sample size and reliance on self-reported outcomes, the findings suggest that GBL is an effective, student-centered instructional tool with distinct benefits across disciplines. Broader, longitudinal studies using objective assessments are recommended to further validate its impact and inform scalable applications in STEM education.

1. Introduction

In recent years, gamification and game-based learning (GBL) have gained growing attention in higher education as innovative methods to address rising academic pressures and more complex subjects. Educators seek strategies that enhance engagement and motivation and deepen understanding. Gamification applies to game mechanics in non-game contexts, while GBL integrates actual games into teaching. Both approaches show strong potential to bridge engagement and achievement.

1.1. Defining Game-Based Learning and Gamification

Game-based learning is broadly defined as an instructional approach that integrates game elements into educational settings to make learning more engaging and immersive. According to Pho and Dinscore (2015), GBL enhances student motivation by providing playful learning environments that accommodate various learning styles. Similarly, Gui et al. (2023), drawing on Mayer (2014), describe educational games as digital tools designed to improve academic performance through the combination of meaningful content and engaging gameplay.

Gamification, though related, differs slightly by incorporating game-like elements—such as competition, rewards, and challenges—into traditional, non-game learning activities. This approach is particularly effective in maintaining motivation and engagement across various subjects and student groups (Beger et al., 2025; Mayer, 2014; Pho & Dinscore, 2015).

1.2. Theoretical Foundations of GBL

The theoretical basis of GBL lies in constructivist and experiential learning theories, emphasizing learning through doing, reflection, and problem-solving. Cekmis and Karakaya (2024) argue that GBL promotes active learning environments where students build knowledge through interaction and decision-making. Similarly, Beger et al. (2025) show that gamified learning formats encourage students to identify knowledge gaps and engage more deeply with content than in traditional lecture formats.

1.3. Cognitive and Affective Learning Outcomes

A large amount of research supports the cognitive benefits of GBL. Gui et al. (2023) highlight improvements in critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making when students engage with digital games. Similarly, Cekmis and Karakaya (2024) highlight enhanced memory, spatial reasoning, and cognitive flexibility. Beger et al. (2025) add that collaborative games such as scavenger hunts foster social learning and emotional investment, and that competitive, team-based formats increase satisfaction and reduce anxiety.

1.4. Applications in Biology and Architecture Education

While GBL has been extensively studied in STEM fields, its use in areas like biology and architecture offers promising insights. In biology education, instructional gameplay strategies such as virtual escape rooms have been shown to help students understand complex and abstract topics. Beger et al. (2025) reports that biology students found these formats both motivating and effective in learning content, especially when feedback and collaboration were included in the design.

In architecture education, digital games offer an interactive platform for students to apply visual design principles and spatial reasoning in a dynamic environment. Cekmis and Karakaya (2024) indicated that GBL supports early design learning by encouraging students to experiment with form and structure, enhancing both creative thinking and problem-solving skills. Role-playing and scenario-based activities also help students simulate real-world architectural decision-making, promoting a more experiential and applied learning approach.

1.5. Engagement, Motivation, and Social Learning

A consistent theme across the literature shows that GBL enhances student motivation and engagement. This enhancement directly targets the core components of engagement, which are classified into three dimensions: emotional, cognitive, and behavioral. It is suggested that GBL fosters emotional engagement through “flow condition” (fun and deep concentration), and cognitive engagement through problem-solving, which encourages students to be invested in learning and relish challenges (Heilporn et al., 2021; Fredricks et al., 2019; Lawson & Lawson, 2013; Trowler, 2010). During this state, students are so fully immersed that concerns like time or behavior issues are typically forgotten (Heilporn et al., 2021; Lawson & Lawson, 2013; Trowler, 2010). Pho and Dinscore (2015) argue that game elements such as competition, feedback, and rewards generate excitement and encourage participation, especially in team-based activities. Similarly, Gui et al. (2023) point out that educational games create immersive environments that sustain learner interest over long periods. Beyond individual learning, GBL promotes social interaction and collaboration, as team-based games build communication, cooperation, and leadership—skills valuable in labs and studios (Parsons & Taylor, 2011). Students today are intensely social and interactive learners who want to learn from and with each other (Parsons & Taylor, 2011). This aligns with behavioral engagement, which includes active participation in learning, and the recognized importance of active and collaborative learning as a salient academic aspect of the student experience (Trowler, 2010). Beger et al. (2025) note that group dynamics boost social confidence and develop real-world skills that go beyond the classroom.

1.6. Pedagogical and Institutional Challenges

This literature review, which has outlined the high potential of game-based approaches, must also acknowledge the pedagogical and institutional challenges facing GBL implementation. Cekmis and Karakaya (2024) note difficulties in aligning game-based content with standardized curricula and assessment systems. The literature confirms that effective learning design must include assessment methods that compel certain standards of performance, which can be difficult to integrate with gamified elements (Trowler, 2010). Without intentional integration, gamified elements can become distractions, rather than effective educational tools (Parsons & Taylor, 2011). Another limitation concerns the scalability and inclusivity of GBL interventions. Beger et al. (2025) identifies logistical obstacles such as time constraints, technical demands, and software access. Additionally, the voluntary nature of many GBL studies can lead to selection bias, as students who are predisposed to enjoy games are more likely to participate, complicating the evaluation of GBL’s effectiveness across diverse students and learning environments. This concern aligns with critiques in the engagement literature that highlight a frequent normative agenda—where authors focus on gains and benefits while potentially ignoring possible downsides—and occasionally adopting a reductionist approach that simplifies the complexity of student groups (Trowler, 2010).

Nevertheless, the existing literature converges on a core conclusion: gamification and GBL foster active, participatory, and student-centered learning experiences (Parsons & Taylor, 2011). Whether in biology labs or architecture studios, these strategies foster critical thinking, collaboration, and emotional investment, aligning with the concept of investing time, effort, and other relevant resources that are intended to enhance student development and learning outcomes (Parsons & Taylor, 2011; Trowler, 2010). By enhancing cognitive outcomes and learner motivation, game-based approaches offer a flexible pedagogical framework (Yawan et al., 2025). Continued refinement, institutional support, and inclusive design are essential for realizing their full educational potential (Trowler, 2010).

The existing body of work, however, contains a gap in the evidence base, as research often relies on stand-alone, almost anecdotal evidence, particularly in the form of small, single case studies (Trowler, 2010). This highlights a crucial need for more robust studies that evaluate the effectiveness of different instructional variables, moving beyond the uncritical, vague use of the term engagement that is often found in evaluation studies. To address this gap and the need for external validation—particularly since engagement issues may vary by discipline—this study focuses on GBL as a specific instance of pedagogical methodology.

1.7. Research Questions

This study aims to examine how GBL influences student engagement, self-efficacy, and knowledge retention across two distinct undergraduate contexts—biology and architecture. By integrating discipline-specific GBL activities, such as scavenger hunts, Jeopardy, and Kahoot! educational games, into the existing curricula, we seek to understand how learning design can be optimized to enhance classroom participation and improve the overall learning experience. The interdisciplinary comparison is intentional: biology and architecture represent contrasting modes of thinking—scientific inquiry and creative spatial reasoning—which provide a robust setting for evaluating the adaptability and effectiveness of GBL. Through this comparative lens, the study aims to refine pedagogical approaches by identifying how students interact with different types of game activities and how these interactions shape their learning experiences.

Guided by this overarching aim, this study addresses four key research questions. (1) To what extent does GBL, implemented as a specific learning design and classroom tool, differentially influence student engagement, self-efficacy, and knowledge retention in biology and architecture? (2) How do different game formats and group structures shape student learning outcomes within GBL environments? (3) What enablers and barriers affect the effective adoption of GBL? (4) Can discipline-specific patterns and the broader pedagogical benefits of GBL be identified, offering insights that transcend individual subject boundaries? These questions collectively support a deeper understanding of how GBL can be strategically designed and implemented to enhance teaching and learning across diverse academic disciplines.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Curriculum Design

This study adopted a mixed-methods research design to evaluate the impact of GBL on student engagement and learning outcomes. The research was carried out across three undergraduate courses at the University of Hartford—Anatomy and Physiology I, Anatomy and Physiology II, and Environmental Systems for Architectural Design. Although all courses implemented GBL, the activities were intentionally tailored to align with each course’s curricular aims and disciplinary content.

In the biology courses, GBL was integrated through structured activities such as Kahoot! quizzes and Jeopardy-style review sessions, which were designed to reinforce conceptual understanding and assess knowledge retention. In the architecture course, more customized scavenger hunts and Jeopardy activities were developed to guide students through applying environmental system principles to real design contexts. These GBL strategies were purposefully embedded within the existing curriculum to support both formative learning and active engagement.

2.2. Participants

Participants in this study were undergraduate students enrolled in the selected architecture and biology courses during the Spring and Summer 2025 semesters. All students in these courses experienced the same game-based learning settings throughout the semester. To identify eligible participants, a screening survey was distributed (Appendix A) to assess academic background, familiarity with GBL, and language proficiency. Participation in the research was voluntary. Only students who met the inclusion criteria, expressed interest, and signed the informed consent form were included in this study. Across five course sections in each discipline, 15 architecture students and 18 biology students consented to participate, resulting in a total research sample of 33 students.

2.3. Ethical Approval and Consent

The study received Institutional Review Board approval from the University of Hartford (IRB# 24-09-351) to ensure ethical compliance. Participants were provided with an informed consent form outlining the objectives, procedures, risks, benefits, and confidentiality. Participation was voluntary, with the right to withdraw at any time. Those who agreed to data sharing received a small appreciation token in the form of a $20 gift card.

2.4. Data Collection Methods

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted between January and September 2025, using Microsoft Forms. All participants provided written informed consent prior to participation.

Instrument Development and Construct Validity

Because no suitable validated questionnaire addressing our specific research questions was found in the existing literature, we designed a set of instruments that were tailored to the study context: (1) a screening survey (Appendix A), (2) a pre-intervention survey (Appendix B), (3) a post-intervention survey (Appendix C), and (4) formative knowledge-retention quizzes (Appendix D and Appendix E).

Instrument development was guided by the study’s research questions, established definitions of gamified learning and student engagement, and domains that are commonly used in educational research (e.g., engagement, perception, and knowledge strategies). To enhance content validity, the draft items were reviewed internally by subject-matter experts from both disciplinary contexts (architecture and biology) to ensure clarity, relevance, and alignment with the constructs being measured. Minor revisions were made based on their feedback before deployment.

Surveys and Question Types

The pre- and post-intervention surveys consisted of 17 Likert-scale items and six open-ended questions. Items were grouped into five thematic domains: (1) classroom engagement; (2) knowledge retention and understanding of key concepts; (3) perceptions of gamified learning; (4) overall learning experience and future recommendations; and (5) demographic data and disciplinary context. The Likert items used both 1-point and 5-point endpoint scales, e.g., classroom engagement (5 = ”very engaged”) or key concept understanding (5 = ”very confident”). Multiple-choice and single-choice questions were included where appropriate.

Survey Administration

The screening survey was used only to determine participant eligibility and was not included in the data analysis. The pre-intervention survey, administrated within the first week of the semesters, measured the baseline engagement levels, learning strategies, and prior experiences with gamification, and collected demographic information to support cross-disciplinary comparisons. The post-intervention survey, administered one week before final exams, measured students’ experiences with the gamified activities and changes in engagement, perceptions, and understanding. Reminders were sent to maximize completion rates, and all responses were collected confidentially and analyzed in aggregate.

Supplementary Data Sources

To complement the survey data, formative quizzes were administered intermittently after each gamified activity to assess short-term knowledge retention. These quizzes were implemented multiple times across the semester—three times in architecture and eight times in biology. Additionally, students completed anonymous feedback evaluation forms at the end of the GBL intervention to provide qualitative insights into their experiences, challenges, and recommendations.

2.5. Game Design, Tools, Technologies, and Integration

This research implemented three primary GBL strategies—scavenger hunt, Jeopardy, and Kahoot!—using the same game designs across courses in different disciplines. A combination of digital platforms and physical resources supported the implementation of the game-based learning strategies used in this study. While the game formats remained consistent, the contents and questions were tailored to align with the specific objectives and learning outcomes of the architecture and biology courses. In doing so, the strategies fostered cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement by creating active, collaborative, and reflective learning environments. In this study, GBL was integrated through live classroom games, followed by the upload of all related materials to the learning management system (Blackboard), allowing students to review and replay activities at their own pace to reinforce content retention while maintaining individual engagement and enjoyment. These activities were integrated into the curriculum as structured pedagogical interventions designed to enhance comprehension, motivation, and peer interaction.

Scavenger Hunt—This game was designed as an interactive and experiential learning strategy aimed at deepening student engagement with key course content. In addition to digital tools, physical materials—including scavenger hunt stations, printed clues, and worksheets—were developed to support tactile and collaborative scavenger hunt activities. As the first major GBL intervention, this activity promoted collaborative exploration and critical thinking by guiding students through a series of clue-based stations distributed across the learning environment (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Students were divided into small teams (3–4 people) and presented with a sequence of thematically connected riddles or tasks that required solving in order to advance to the next station (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6). Each task—whether it involved sketching, answering conceptual questions, or engaging in short reflective exercises—was directly linked to foundational or advanced course concepts (see Appendix D and Appendix E for examples from both disciplines).

Figure 1. Examples of scavenger hunt clues in the architecture course (Spring 2025).

Figure 2. Examples of scavenger hunt stations in the architecture course (Spring 2025).

Figure 3. Group problem-solving at a scavenger hunt station in the architecture course (Spring 2025).

Figure 4. Student collaboration during the scavenger hunt in the architecture course (Spring 2025).

Figure 5. Peer interaction during scavenger hunt tasks in the architecture course (Spring 2025).

Figure 6. Student teamwork during a scavenger hunt game on the endocrine system in the biology course (Spring 2025).

The scavenger hunt was implemented in a controlled classroom setting, with the goal of balancing structure and play. Each team was evaluated not only on the accuracy of their responses but also on the quality of their collaboration, reinforcing the importance of teamwork in problem-solving. The sequential nature of the activity required students to apply their knowledge in real time while fostering movement, peer dialog, and hands-on interaction with their surroundings. This approach aligned with the research goal of assessing how game-based activities could enhance knowledge retention, engagement, and team-based learning in disciplinary contexts. Prizes in the form of stationary study tools such as notebooks and pens were awarded to the highest-performing teams, providing a motivational component that encouraged active participation and healthy competition.

Jeopardy Game—The Jeopardy game was used as a second interactive learning strategy to promote collaborative review and knowledge reinforcement. JeopardyLabs.com provides a customizable quiz interface for group-based gameplay; delivered through this platform, the digital game simulated a quiz show environment, using custom-designed boards that were tailored to each course’s content (Figure 7). Categories covered a range of topics, from foundational to complex concepts, each with ascending point values. Students were divided into teams of four to five and asked to select a team name and designate a team leader to be responsible for operating a quiz game buzzer (Figure 8), which were used during Jeopardy sessions to simulate live response dynamics and enhance the competitive atmosphere. Gameplay was live and fast-paced: when a question was revealed, teams had 10 s to confer before buzzing in to answer (Figure 9 and Figure 10).

Figure 7. Custom Jeopardy game board created on JeopardyLabs.com (Spring 2025).

Figure 8. Team discussion and buzzer use during Jeopardy gameplay in the biology course (Spring 2025).

Figure 9. Students using live quiz game buzzers during Jeopardy gameplay in the biology course (Spring 2025).

Figure 10. Live gameplay of the Jeopardy-style activity in the biology course (Spring 2025).

The Jeopardy game created playful competition and high engagement, offering real-time feedback and peer discussion to encourage strategic thinking and rapid recall. To maintain a supportive learning environment, no penalties were imposed for incorrect answers, and opportunities to respond were extended to other teams. Leadership roles within groups were sometimes rotated to ensure equitable participation. The game was implemented once in the architecture course and multiple times in the biology course, offering repeated opportunities for reinforcement. The activity concluded with prizes in the form of stationary study tools such as notebooks and pens for winning teams, further incentivizing participation and reinforcing the research aim of enhancing motivation, collaboration, and content mastery through GBL.

Kahoot!—The third strategy employed was Kahoot!, a web-based quiz platform that offered a more individualized approach to game-based learning. This activity was introduced because Kahoot! offered an engaging, web-based platform that enables real-time individual participation through students’ mobile devices. Kahoot! provided an alternative for students who preferred a self-paced and low-pressure format, while still engaging them in content review and competition. During the activity, questions were projected onto a shared screen, and students used their personal mobile devices to respond in real time. This mode of interaction introduced novelty and excitement, particularly as it deviated from the typical phone-restricted classroom environment.

Kahoot! quizzes included multiple-choice and true/false questions, covering a mix of foundational knowledge and advanced application across both disciplines (Figure 11). Timed responses and a point system added urgency and excitement, while the individual nature of the game promoted autonomy and allowed for greater accessibility. Unlike Jeopardy or the scavenger hunt, Kahoot! required no group coordination, reducing barriers for students who may be hesitant to participate in team-based formats. This adaptability made Kahoot! a frequently used tool throughout the semester, offering repeated opportunities for content reinforcement, student feedback, and inclusive engagement. Overall, the tool supported the research objective of exploring how diverse gamified learning formats could serve different student needs and learning preferences.

Figure 11. Kahoot! quiz interface in the architecture course (Spring 2025).

2.6. Statistical Analyses

All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 29 (Chicago, IL, USA) or GraphPad Prism Version 10.4 (Boston, MA, USA). Descriptive analysis was applied for quantitative data, while content analysis, according to Kuckartz (2019), was applied to analyze open-ended text responses. Chi Square tests for homogeneity were used to examine changes in engagement, participation, perceived knowledge retention, and content understanding before and after the GBL intervention. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation. A result was considered to be statistically significant if the p-value was less than 0.05 (p < 0.05). Effect sizes were calculated using Cramer’s V test (V), with values of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 interpreted as small, medium, and large, respectively. In human studies, a small effect size reflects a subtle but detectable change; a medium effect size indicates a meaningful and noticeable improvement; and a large effect size represents a strong, highly impactful change with clear practical significance. We applied qualitative content analysis to systematically develop thematic summaries and interpret participants’ perspectives in relation to the research questions (Kuckartz, 2019). This approach allowed us to conceptually condense large volumes of text, compare categories across cases, and identify meaningful relationships between themes while ensuring transparency and intersubjective reliability in the analytic process. Only student participants who signed the consent form and completed both pre- and post-intervention surveys (n = 33) were included in the inferential analyses. The effect sizes were based on the standard deviation of the scores. The visual summaries of ordinal variables were presented as bar charts.

3. Results

3.1. Participant Characteristics

A total of 46 undergraduate students completed the screening questionnaire. Of those, 33 signed the informed consent form, completed both the pre- and post-intervention surveys, and were included in the final analysis. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 27 years (19.64 ± 1.64 years). Student participants were relatively equal between the two majors, with biology being 51.4%, and architecture being 48.6%.

Students were distributed across academic years, with 72.7% being in their sophomore year, 15.2% in their junior year, 9.1% in their freshman year, and 3.0% in their senior year. Prior to the intervention, 60.6% of students reported no previous experience with GBL activities. Among those with prior GBL experience (39.4%), all described it positively (e.g., “good” or “excellent”).

3.2. Students’ Engagement

Students’ engagement was measured on a 5-point scale, where one indicated “not engaged” and five indicated “very engaged.” Regardless of disciplines, students reported higher engagement after the integration of GBL activities compared to the pre-GBL baseline (p < 0.0001) with a large effect size (V ≥ 0.63; Figure 12C). Notably, biology exhibited a greater increase in engagement following the GBL intervention (V = 0.81; Figure 12B) compared to architecture (V = 0.63; Figure 12A). At the baseline, 61% of biology students reported being “moderately engaged.” Post-intervention, however, all biology students (100%) reported being either “mostly engaged” or “very engaged,” indicating a substantial positive shift in perceived engagement, which was attributable to the GBL approach (Figure 12B).

Figure 12. Student engagement before and after game-based learning (GBL) integration. Engagement was measured on a 5-point scale (1 = not engaged, 5 = very engaged). Across disciplines, engagement increased after GBL intervention with a large effect size (p < 0.0001, V ≥ 0.63; (C)). Biology showed a larger gain (V = 0.81; (B)) than architecture (V = 0.63; (A)). Notably, biology students shifted from 61% reporting “moderately engaged” at the baseline to 100% reporting “mostly” or “very engaged” post-intervention (B).

3.3. Classroom Participation

Participation in discussion and group activities was measured on a 5-point scale, where one indicated “never participated” and five indicated “always participated.” Similarly, students reported improved participation in classroom discussions after the GBL intervention compared to the pre-GBL baseline (p < 0.0001), with medium-to-large effect sizes (V ≥ 0.46; Figure 13C). Architecture demonstrated a greater shift in participation following the GBL intervention (V = 0.55; Figure 13A) compared to biology (V = 0.46; Figure 13B). As shown in Figure 13A, the proportion of architecture students reporting that they participated “often” or “always” increased markedly after the intervention (Figure 13A). At baseline, 82% of architecture students indicated that they participated only “rarely” or “sometimes.” Following the GBL intervention, this trend reversed, with 71% of students reporting participation levels of “often” or “always,” suggesting a notable improvement in self-reported engagement resulting from the implementation of GBL strategies (Figure 13A).

Figure 13. Student participation in discussions and group activities before and after game-based learning (GBL). Participation, rated on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = always), increased post-GBL regardless of majors, with a medium to large effect size (p < 0.0001, V ≥ 0.46; (C)). Architecture reported a larger improvement (V = 0.55; (A)) compared to biology (V = 0.46; (B)). Among architecture students, baseline reports of “rarely”/”sometimes” participation (82%) shifted to 71% reporting “often”/”always” post-intervention (A).

3.4. Perceived Knowledge Retention

Perceived knowledge retention was measured on a 5-point scale, where one indicated “not well perceived” and five indicated “very well perceived.” Overall, students reported greater perceived retention of information post-GBL intervention compared to the pre-GBL baseline (p < 0.0001), with a medium to large effect size (V ≥ 0.43; Figure 14C). Biology demonstrated a greater shift in perceived knowledge retention following the GBL intervention (V = 0.59; Figure 14B) compared to architecture (V = 0.43; Figure 14A). As shown in Figure 14B, the distribution of responses shifted markedly from “moderately well” at the baseline to higher categories after the intervention. Initially, 61% of biology students rated their knowledge retention as “moderately well.” After participating in GBL activities, however, 90% reported retention levels of “well” or “very well,” indicating a substantial improvement (Figure 14B). These findings suggest that the GBL strategies meaningfully enhanced students’ perceived ability to retain course content, particularly among biology majors.

Figure 14. Perceived knowledge retention before and after game-based learning (GBL). Retention, rated on a 5-point scale (1 = not well, 5 = very well), improved post-GBL across disciplines with a medium-to-large effect size (p < 0.0001, V ≥ 0.43; (C)). Biology demonstrated a greater improvement (V = 0.59; (B)) compared to architecture (V = 0.43; (A)). Among biology students, baseline ratings of “moderately well” (61%) shifted to 90% reporting “well” or “very well” post-intervention (B).

3.5. Confidence in Key Content Understanding

Confidence in key content understanding was measured on a 5-point scale, where one indicated “not confident” and five indicated “very confident.” Likewise, students reported increased confidence in understanding key concepts following the GBL intervention compared to the pre-GBL baseline (p < 0.001); however, this difference was observed at a small-to-medium effect size (V ≥ 0.27; Figure 15C). Notably, architecture demonstrated a greater shift in confidence on content understanding after the GBL intervention (V = 0.35; Figure 15A) compared to biology (V = 0.28; Figure 15B). As shown in Figure 15C, responses shifted modestly from “moderately confident” to higher confidence levels after the intervention. Across both groups, the proportion of students rating themselves as “mostly confident” or “very confident” increased considerably, rising from 72% at baseline to 87% post-GBL (Figure 15C). This distribution reflects a medium effect size (V = 0.27), suggesting that the GBL strategies meaningfully enhanced students’ confidence in their understanding of the course material.

Figure 15. Confidence in understanding key concepts before and after game-based learning (GBL). Confidence across disciplines, rated on a 5-point scale (1 = not confident, 5 = very confident), increased post-GBL with a small-to-medium effect size (p < 0.001, V ≥ 0.27; (C)). Architecture illustrated a greater gain (V = 0.35; (A)) than biology (V = 0.28; (B)). Across groups, the proportion of students reporting “mostly” or “very confident” rose from 72% at baseline to 87% after the intervention (C).

3.6. Overall Experience

The overall experience of GBL was measured on a 5-point scale, where one indicated “poor” and five indicated “excellent.” Students reported a better overall experience following the GBL intervention compared to the pre-GBL baseline (p < 0.0001), with a large effect size (V ≥ 0.51; Figure 16C). Architecture reported a greater shift toward rating their experience as “excellent” (V = 0.76; Figure 16A) compared to biology (V = 0.51; Figure 16B). As shown in Figure 16C, this shift reflects a pronounced movement from “good” to “very good” or “excellent” in post-intervention responses. Across both groups, the proportion of students who rated their experience as “very good” or “excellent” increased substantially, rising from 54% at baseline to 87% following the GBL intervention, with the largest gains observed among architecture majors (Figure 16C). This distribution corresponds to a large effect size, indicating that the GBL intervention produced a strong, highly impactful improvement in students’ perceived learning experience during lectures.

Figure 16. Overall experience ratings before and after game-based learning (GBL). Experience, rated on a 5-point scale (1 = poor, 5 = excellent), improved significantly post-GBL regardless of majors (p < 0.0001, V ≥ 0.51; (C)). Architecture exhibited a greater shift (V = 0.76; (A)) than biology (V = 0.51; (B)). Across groups, the proportion of students reporting “very good” or “excellent” rose from 54% at baseline to 87% post-intervention, with the largest gains among architecture students (C).

3.7. Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA)

Using QCA, we systematically coded the open-ended responses from the post-intervention survey and generated thematic summaries to interpret students’ perceptions of the GBL experience. Following the initial coding, all text segments associated with each category were reviewed to develop case-level thematic summaries, allowing us to conceptually condense large volumes of narrative data while preserving the subjective meaning of students’ statements. This approach enabled us to move beyond individual quotations to identify broader patterns, relationships between categories, and points of divergence across participants.

Three major themes emerged from the analysis. First, students widely perceived the interactive and application-based nature of GBL as being beneficial for learning. Many emphasized that the games supported understanding of complex or abstract concepts, with one student noting that GBL “helped when the topics were difficult to grasp during lectures.” The thematic summaries for this category consistently reflect enhanced cognitive reinforcement through active recall and repetition.

Second, enjoyment and engagement formed a prominent theme. Students frequently described GBL sessions as refreshing or fun, citing both specific topics (e.g., “Passive Design”) and the shift away from lecture-centered instruction, with one stating it “felt like a break from normal class, but I still learned something.” Across cases, summaries highlighted that perceived enjoyment contributed to increased motivation, aligning with the existing literature on the affective benefits of GBL.

The third theme centered on concerns regarding distractions and accountability. Although several students reported improved retention or application of content, others expressed frustration with disruptions, particularly inappropriate technology use and peer behavior. Comments such as “people were basically cheating…using AI and immediately submitting” and suggestions like “stop using phones immediately” reflected a shared desire for clearer expectations and stronger facilitation. In developing thematic summaries, we purposely included counterexamples to avoid selective plausibility and to capture the full range of student experiences.

Overall, the QCA findings complement the quantitative results by illustrating that students viewed GBL as pedagogically valuable yet sensitive to the classroom structure and management. The thematic summaries reveal that while GBL promotes engagement and supports learning, its effectiveness depends on intentional design, equitable participation, and clear instructional guidance.

4. Discussion

The results of this study demonstrated that GBL intervention enhances students’ engagement, participation, overall experience, and perceived knowledge retention compared to the pre-GBL baseline. Students reported being more attentive, more willing to contribute to classroom discussions, and more confident in their ability to recall material after participating in GBL activities. These findings are consistent with the prior literature highlighting the motivational and social benefits of GBL (Beger et al., 2025; Cekmis & Karakaya, 2024; Pho & Dinscore, 2015) while also extending these insights into the contrasting contexts of biology and architecture education. Although improvements in confidence in key content understanding showed a medium effect size, the upward trend suggests that GBL has the potential to reinforce comprehension, particularly when students are actively involved in collaborative, feedback-rich environments.

Consistently with previous research, our results indicated that GBL enhances competency and fosters innovative, collaborative learning that emerges from interactive, constructivist, cooperative, and improvisational educational techniques (Hämäläinen et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2023). Similarly to earlier findings, we observed that GBL can cultivate not only knowledge acquisition but also the development of communication and teamwork skills that are essential for professional success (Barbieri et al., 2021; Glover & Bodzin, 2021). These outcomes are particularly meaningful in undergraduate STEM instruction, where students often perceive courses as being difficult and abstract, which can undermine confidence and engagement (Academies, 2016; Henry et al., 2021; Robbins et al., 2009). By transforming the learning environment into an active, student-centered space, GBL empowers learners to take ownership of their education while supporting both cognitive and social skill development.

In contrast to a previous study that reported no effect of learning style on motivation (Wouters & van der Meulen, 2020), our results indicated a substantial increase in students’ motivation to engage with and meaningfully perceive course content when GBL strategies were implemented. This discrepancy from the existing GBL literature may be explained by the integration of improvisational and cooperative elements in our design, which likely enhanced the social and interactive dimensions of learning and increased students’ perception of the games as ‘fun.’ The motivational gains, combined with improved competency and deeper understanding, highlight the potential of GBL to address the persistent challenge of sustaining student interest in STEM disciplines (Adipat et al., 2021; Fante et al., 2024; Jääskä & Aaltonen, 2022). Collectively, these results underscore GBL’s promise as a pedagogical strategy that bridges both motivational and cognitive outcomes, making STEM education more accessible and engaging for undergraduates.

The qualitative feedback highlights that students largely valued the interactive and application-based aspects of GBL, particularly in reinforcing challenging concepts and providing a refreshing alternative to lecture-driven instruction. Simultaneously, concerns around distractions, cheating, and peer behavior suggest that the format and facilitation of the games significantly shape students’ experiences. Importantly, the data point to a potential difference in perception between group and individual gameplay, as observed in this study. While group formats can foster collaboration, accountability challenges and uneven participation may detract from perceived fairness and learning outcomes. By contrast, individual gameplay may reduce issues of distraction or reliance on peers but could limit the sense of community and shared enjoyment. To maximize both engagement and effectiveness, future implementations should balance individual and team-based formats, incorporating clear expectations, structured facilitation, and mechanisms to ensure equitable participation across settings.

An innovative contribution of this study lies in its cross-disciplinary design, demonstrating how GBL strategies can be adapted to address the distinct learning needs of both biology and architecture students. By integrating game formats that were consistent in design but discipline-specific in content, the study highlights how GBL intervention can transcend disciplinary boundaries. The findings revealed complementary patterns of impact: architecture majors demonstrated greater shifts in confidence in content understanding, participation, and self-assessed excellence compared to biology majors. Conversely, biology majors reported a higher shift in engagement and knowledge retention than their architecture counterparts. Taken together, these findings underscore the adaptability of GBL as a pedagogical framework that not only promotes discipline-specific learning outcomes, but also cultivates transferrable skills such as confidence, collaboration, and problem-solving across diverse fields.

At an institutional level, the sustainable integration of GBL requires intentional support in terms of resources, training, and curriculum design (Dahalan et al., 2024; Galeote et al., 2025; Lai & Hu, 2025). Faculty members need access to technological tools, time to develop or adapt game formats, and professional development opportunities to effectively implement gamified strategies. Without such structural support, GBL risks being a one-off or extracurricular activity, rather than a fully embedded pedagogical approach. Moreover, alignment with assessment frameworks and accreditation standards is essential to ensure that gamified elements reinforce, rather than distract from, the core learning objectives. By fostering institutional cultures that value innovation in teaching and investing in scalable game-based platforms, universities can help ensure that the benefits of GBL, such as heightened engagement, collaboration, and knowledge retention, are realized consistently across undergraduate STEM programs.

Despite these promising results, the present study has several limitations. First, the modest sample size, with only 33 students completing both pre- and post-intervention measures, restricts generalizability and reduces confidence in the robustness of the observed effects. Second, the absence of a control group without GBL intervention and the reliance on self-reported measures of engagement, motivation, and knowledge retention constrain the strength of the conclusions, as limited objective assessments (e.g., exam performance) were used to validate learning gains. Future research should incorporate larger and more diverse student samples, include a non-GBL comparison group, and integrate external measures such as standardized assessments or cross-evaluations to strengthen validity. Additionally, expanding the study design to systematically compare different game formats and group structures will help identify how GBL can be optimized for distinct learning outcomes. Longitudinal studies may further clarify whether short-term gains in motivation and retention of knowledge translate into sustained academic performance and persistence in STEM fields.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that GBL can significantly enhance undergraduate students’ engagement, motivation, participation, and perceived knowledge retention across biology and architecture courses. Architecture exhibited greater gains in confidence, participation, and self-assessed excellence, while biology showed higher engagement and knowledge retention. These results highlight the adaptability of consistent game designs with discipline-specific content to support both content mastery and transferable skills, including collaboration, problem-solving, and critical thinking. Qualitative feedback emphasized the value of interactive, application-based learning, while also noting the challenges related to group dynamics and classroom management, underscoring the importance of structured facilitation.

Limitations include a modest sample size and reliance on self-reported measures, rather than objective assessments of knowledge gain. Future research should involve larger, more diverse populations, incorporate objective metrics, and systematically compare game formats and group structures. Longitudinal studies could determine whether the motivational and retention benefits of GBL translate into improved academic performance and persistence in STEM. With institutional support, including resources and faculty development, collectively, our study underscores the potential of GBL as a pedagogical framework that fosters active, student-centered learning while bridging cognitive, social, and motivational outcomes across undergraduate STEM education.