14 studies on whether learning games actually work

Pooled K-16 studies from 2000-2012. Games beat non-game teaching with an effect size of about 0.33, a meaningful gain. Better-designed games beat basic ones by about the same amount. The big takeaway: design matters more than the fact that it is a game.

77 comparisons with over 5,500 learners. Games beat conventional teaching for learning (d = 0.29) and retention (d = 0.36), but were not reliably more motivating. Gains grew with extra instruction, several sessions and playing in groups.

Children aged 7-11 played versions of a division game where the math was either the combat itself or a separate quiz. The built-in version taught more, and kids chose to play it about seven times longer. The clearest evidence for putting learning inside the play.

Not a test of apps but a guide drawn from decades of learning science. It argues apps teach best when they are active, engaging without distraction, meaningful and socially interactive, and gives parents and makers a grid for rating apps.

Points, badges and leaderboards added to learning had small positive effects on learning (g = 0.49), motivation (0.36) and behavior (0.25). The learning effect held in stronger studies; the motivation effects were shakier.

Psychologist Richard Mayer sorts game research into three questions: which design features help, what skills games build, and whether games beat other teaching. A careful, skeptical book that separates real findings from hype.

24 PreK-12 math studies. Math games had a small, marginally significant edge over traditional teaching (d = 0.26), with no clear difference between younger and older students. Results varied a lot from study to study.

Screened over 300 articles and found few rigorous ones. Some support for games in language learning, history and physical education; little for math and science at the time. A useful reminder of how thin the early evidence was.

A review of 93 studies. Kahoot often helped learning, classroom mood and anxiety, but some studies found little or no effect. Students flagged time pressure and hard-to-read screens as problems.

128 studies. Expected, tangible rewards for doing or finishing a task lowered people's free-choice interest in it afterward. The research behind the worry that coins and prizes in learning games can crowd out real interest.

Coded the apps 160 preschoolers actually used. Only about 20 percent had no manipulative design; free apps had more tricks than paid ones; kids from less-advantaged homes saw more. The study behind most dark-pattern warnings for young kids.

Two meta-analyses found action game players do better on attention and spatial tasks, and training studies showed a smaller but real boost. Gains came from play spread over weeks, not marathon sessions. Mostly adults; not about school subjects.

A survey of 1,155 16- to 18-year-olds found a moderate-to-large link between loot box spending and problem gambling, stronger than in adults. It cannot prove cause, but it is why loot boxes have no place in kids' learning games.

Reviewed a decade of studies and concluded exergames do raise children's physical activity, especially used alongside ordinary exercise. Supports active games as a swap for sitting games, not for going outside.