Tweaking GBL to Make it Work

In this 2018 CoffeED panel, Karl Kapp, André Thomas and Jim Kiggens discuss why game-based learning has not spread across colleges and universities and whether publishers should buy game companies. Below it, a 2026 update looks at what research says about games in college courses and how faculty can choose among them.

Play video: CoffeED: Game-Based Learning Panel One (42 minutes 11 seconds)42:11

Is Publishing the Answer for Game-Based Learning? There are challenges facing colleges and universities in adopting and implementing game-based learning into the higher ed environment. Three of the industry leaders, Karl Kapp, Gamification Analyst and Professor at Bloomsburg University; André Thomas, CEO of Triseum and the creator of the LIVE Lab at Texas A&M University; and Jim Kiggens, Director of Engage Learning Technology at Adtalem Global Education sat down for a panel discussion to add insight into recent developments.

While Game-based learning (GBL) is of interest to many faculty members inside higher ed, they suffer from an overall lack of guidance and direction. Without a publisher leading the charge, faculty must rely on grassroots forms of recommendation and rating. The panel discusses the need for accreditation and a proven rating system to build adoption.

Technology is continually evolving, and GBL finds itself facing the stigma of “unsexy” in comparison to the new shiny objects of VR (virtual reality) and AI (artificial intelligence). The game-based learning model needs altering, and the panel winds up the discussion pondering whether or not the educational publishers should start acquiring gaming companies to advance their curriculum.

About the Panel

Jim Kiggens

Jim Kiggens has over two decades of experience in producing and developing game-based learning for higher education, middle and secondary school, and corporate training. In addition to shipping 24 Serious Game titles at Course Games, Jim also has over 20 years of experience in instructional design, program development, and teaching digital animation and game development at several colleges and universities.

Jim has published and presented widely regarding the development of game-based learning and is currently leading VR research at Adtalem Global Education : Play.

Follow Jim Kiggens and Adtalem Global Education on Twitter

Karl Kapp

Karl Kapp, Gamification, is an analyst, published author and assistant director and faculty member at Bloomsburg University’s Institute for Interactive Technologies (IIT).

Karl M. Kapp, EdD, is a scholar, writer, and expert on the convergence of games, learning, and technology. Karl received his doctorate of education in instructional design at the University of Pittsburgh, and is an award-winning professor of instructional technology at Bloomsburg University, in Bloomsburg, PA. Karl consults with learning technology companies and advises Fortune 500 companies on the use of gamification and game-based strategies for transferring knowledge to employees.

Game based learning in higher education: what the research says and how to choose

Game based learning in higher education faces the problem the panel above describes: faculty interested in games have little guidance on which ones work. Karl Kapp, André Thomas and Jim Kiggens called for a trusted rating system, and they wondered whether publishers should acquire game companies. Research since 2018 does not supply a ratings system, but it helps faculty and academic leaders ask better questions before they adopt a game.

What a large review found

The most useful review this update could open covers learners from kindergarten through college. In 2016 Douglas Clark, Emily Tanner-Smith and Stephen Killingsworth published a systematic review and meta-analysis of digital games and learning in the Review of Educational Research. Digital games produced a significant learning benefit over non-game conditions, with an average effect size of 0.33 across 57 comparisons. The page reports the figure as an effect size without saying which type. Games with augmented designs outperformed standard game designs by 0.34 across 20 comparisons. The authors reported that effects varied with game mechanics, visual and narrative characteristics, and the quality of the research, and the abstract concludes that the findings highlight the affordances of games for learning as well as the key role of design beyond the medium.

Two cautions apply. The review covers kindergarten through college students together, so it does not isolate university courses. It also ends in 2016, before the virtual reality and artificial intelligence tools the panel mentions as competitors for attention.

Why the answer depends on the course

A 2026 meta-analysis by Alejandro Valencia-Arias and colleagues (seven authors) in Contemporary Educational Technology examined the link between gamification, serious games and learning in university settings. Its abstract states that the relationship is not a homogeneous effect but a complex phenomenon shaped by educational context, pedagogical design and methodological decisions in the studies reviewed. Only the abstract was read for this update, and it did not report the number of studies or effect sizes, so those details should be checked in the full article before anyone relies on them.

Taken together, the two sources support a cautious position that matches the panel’s concern. Games can help, the benefit depends on how a game is designed and used, and no single rating can promise results in every course. A faculty member who adopts a game because it is popular has less to go on than one who matches the game to a course goal.

Questions to ask before adopting a game

1. Which learning outcome in the syllabus does the game address, and how will students show that outcome apart from their score in the game?
2. What does the design do to support learning? The 2016 review found that mechanics and narrative features affected results, so ask the developer or publisher what evidence it has for those choices.
3. Who tested the game with students like these, and in what kind of course? A study from one setting may not carry over to another.
4. How will the instructor connect play to course content, through discussion or debriefing, so that the game is part of teaching and not an extra?
5. What does adoption cost in time, training and licensing, and can a small pilot answer the question first?

For a department wanting a first step toward the shared guidance the panel asked for, a simple review sheet can help. Each time a faculty member tries a game, the department can record the course, the learning goal, how the game was used with students, what students produced afterward and what the instructor would change. Even a short shared record of that kind lets the next instructor see what happened in a real course, which a publisher’s description cannot show. It does not replace the accreditation or rating system the panel discussed, but it gives colleagues the same kind of information on a small scale.

The panel’s question about publishers acquiring game companies remains a business question this update could not answer from research. Faculty who want a model of how a course can change around games can read the edCircuit conversation Curriculum Redesign and Gaming with Jen Groff. Pilot results shared between departments, with the course goal and the evidence stated, would do part of the job the panel hoped a rating system would do.

Further Reading

1. Edutopia – Reading Digital Games as Texts
2. EdSurge – What Game-Based Learning Can Do for Student Achievement
3. TeachThought – 6 Basic Benefits Of Game-Based Learning

Related reading

• Curriculum Redesign & Gaming with Jen Groff

More on Gamification and Game-Based Learning