Game-Based Learning and Teen Motivation: What the Research Shows and Doesn't

Does game-based learning motivate teenagers? The short answer is somewhat, and the evidence is thinner than the headlines suggest. The direct evidence for secondary students is one randomized-by-class trial of 120 lower secondary students in Tanzania (Haruna and colleagues, 2018) plus reviews of chemistry and math games. The pooled effect sizes come from elsewhere: a 2024 meta-analysis of children aged 3 to 8 (g = 0.40 for motivation, g = 0.44 for engagement) and a 2019 meta-analysis of gamified instruction across settings, which called its motivational effect (g = 0.36) small.

Two more facts belong up front. In the most rigorous subset of that 2019 meta-analysis, and in its randomized studies, the motivational effect was not statistically significant. And among the sources reviewed here we did not find a trial of game-based learning in a personal finance course.

Sustained play inside a curriculum

Two findings from the Wouters meta-analysis covered below bear on how a game is used: games taught more when players had several sessions and when the game was supplemented with other instruction. In Rapunzl, gamified learning runs through a standards-aligned curriculum of 48 modules instead of sitting in a one-off review game, and students work with simulated $10,000 portfolios. A free national scholarship competition, which runs January to early May, adds a goal that spans the spring.

No study cited here tested Rapunzl or a finance course, so read this as our reasoning, not a research result.

What does the research say about game-based learning and motivation?

Across designs, game-based and gamified instruction tends to land ahead of comparison conditions on motivation and engagement. The sizes are small to moderate, and the strongest numbers come from the youngest children. The table lists the secondary-level evidence first.

An effect of g = 0.40 means the average student in a game-based class scores roughly as high as a student at the 66th percentile of a comparison class. Three of these are meta-analyses that pool results; the rest are narrative reviews or a single trial, and a narrative review can say that most studies found a benefit without saying how large it is.

Do the gains last, or is it novelty?

Partly, and only one long study speaks to it. Rodrigues and colleagues ran a quasi-experimental study of 756 Brazilian STEM students in an introductory programming course, measuring behavior across one semester in seven two-week intervals. Gamification's effect on behavior (attempts, usage time and system access) decreased after about four weeks, and the decrease lasted two to six weeks. Then it partly recovered between weeks six and ten. The authors read this as a novelty effect followed by a familiarization effect.

In that one study the dip came around week four and the recovery followed. Nobody tested what drove the recovery, so "give it time" is a hypothesis.

Other results fit loosely. Alotaibi reported a motivation effect of g = 0.50 for longer game sessions and g = 0.26 for shorter ones, in children aged 3 to 8, so the finding is suggestive for teens at most. Wouters and colleagues found more learning with multiple sessions. Sailer and Homner found that combining competition with collaboration looked particularly effective for behavioral outcomes, and the authors were less sure that the advantage held for motivation.

What do we know about secondary students?

In the Haruna trial, three intact classes were randomly assigned to game-based lessons, gamified lessons or traditional teaching for 40 minutes a week over five weeks, on sexual health education. Students in both game conditions rated their emotional and cognitive engagement far higher than the traditional class did, and one traditional-class student called the lessons "unappealing and boring."

The limits are specific. With one class per condition, class differences cannot be ruled out. The ratings were self-reported, the topic was health education, and the setting was a single school. The students were around Grade 7, not high school.

Byusa and colleagues found secondary school was the most common setting among the 24 chemistry-game studies they analyzed, at 15 of 31 level counts (some studies spanned more than one level). Hui and Mahmud counted eight secondary studies among their 28 math articles. In Sailer and Homner's analysis, only three motivation studies took place in school settings, and that estimate was not statistically significant.

What can the game studies not show yet?

Game-based learning has not been shown to beat every other method. Wouters and colleagues, pooling 77 learning studies and 31 motivation studies, found games more effective for learning but did not find them significantly more motivating than conventional instruction. In Sailer and Homner's data, the motivational effect disappeared in the high-rigor subset (g = 0.22, not significant) and in randomized studies alone, though the authors note those analyses were underpowered.

Individual studies can also come out differently than their authors expect. In a 2015 experiment, Hui-Chun Chu and Chun-Ming Hung had 59 sixth graders in two classes build digital games in a science course, which is game-making and differs from playing one. Problem solving improved, but the authors wrote that achievement and motivation were quite different from their expectations.

The Haruna ratings are questionnaires that students fill out themselves, and a motivated student does not automatically learn more. Alotaibi notes that many included studies were small and short. Achievement is a separate question that this post does not try to settle.

Using games in a high school class

The first three bullets track findings above. The last two are our judgment, and no study cited here tested them.

• Run the game over several sessions. Wouters found more learning with multiple sessions, and the longest study saw a dip around week four, so plan something fresh by then.
• Pair the game with instruction. Give a short lesson before play and a debrief after, which matches the "supplemented with other instruction" finding.
• Combine team and individual play. The pooled evidence favors competition mixed with collaboration for behavior, and it is thin for motivation.
• Give the game a goal beyond points, such as a class challenge or an outside audience.
• Check engagement with students. A two-question exit slip every couple of weeks ("how interested were you today, and why?") tells you whether the dip has arrived.

For ideas that fit a high school economics or finance class, see economics classroom games for high school.

Whether a season-long game fits your semester is easier to judge hands-on, so request a free Rapunzl demo and look at the simulator and curriculum yourself.

By Maria Rodriguez, Curriculum Designer at Rapunzl.