Head Games: Key Concepts & Distinctions in Learning Through Play
Image generated using Midjourney (2025).
TLDR: This article offers a synthesis of seven foundational concepts in gameful learning, clarifying their definitions, uses, and pedagogical implications. It distinguishes between full-fledged learning games (Game-Based Learning), repurposed commercial titles (Game-Enhanced Learning), and the motivational layering of Gamification. It further examines the purpose-driven design of Serious Games and their instructional subset, Educational Games, alongside Persuasive Games that aim to shift attitudes through interactive systems. The piece also explores the sensory depth of Immersive Learning via XR technologies, and champions playfulness as an integral mode of learning. Taken together, these concepts reveal that play—when guided by intent—is not ancillary to education but central to its most transformative possibilities.By Lance Bunt *Thoughts refined and sharpened with the help of ChatGPT
Educators today face a maze of terms – game-based learning, gamification, serious games, and more – that promise to revolutionise learning. Yet without clear definitions and thoughtful application, these buzzwords risk confusion and superficial practice. The following overview clarifies eight core concepts in game-enhanced learning, critiques their use, and highlights how each can enrich K–12 education, higher education, corporate training, and healthcare. I also explore emerging ideas like ludic pedagogy and XR-based learning, arguing for precise conceptual distinctions and intentional use of “gameful” approaches across diverse settings.
Game-Based Learning (GBL)
Game-Based Learning (GBL) refers to the use of actual games—broadly defined—within an educational context, wherein learners engage in gameplay as part of the instructional process (Paper, n.d.). Importantly, the game in GBL constitutes a complete and meaningful experience in its own right, rather than merely serving as an adjunct to traditional teaching (Paper, n.d.). Early contributions by Prensky (2001) brought prominence to the idea of Digital Game-Based Learning, advocating for the use of video games in education. Contemporary definitions have since expanded to include any situation in which playing a game is central to achieving specific educational objectives. In effective GBL practice, the game's design is inherently aligned with curricular outcomes, whether through purpose-built educational games or the repurposing of commercial games for pedagogical use.
However, while GBL is conceptually appealing, it often suffers from theoretical ambiguity. The term is sometimes applied loosely, encompassing virtually any classroom activity involving games, which risks diluting its pedagogical significance. Critics argue that not all subject matter is equally conducive to game-based approaches, and that the entertainment imperatives of a game can, at times, conflict with its educational goals (Academia.edu, n.d.). A misaligned game may encourage students to prioritise winning over understanding, resulting in superficial engagement that fails to meet deeper learning needs (Academia.edu, n.d.). Clark (2003) notably warned that when gameplay mechanics overshadow instructional aims, games can distract learners with extrinsic rewards such as points or competition, undermining genuine cognitive development. Thus, a central challenge for GBL is maintaining a balanced integration of enjoyment and pedagogical rigour. When implemented thoughtfully, GBL draws upon sound educational theories—such as experiential learning, narrative immersion, and feedback loops—but it must avoid becoming a gimmick or token activity.
GBL has been implemented across diverse educational and training contexts. In primary and secondary education, learners might engage with Minecraft or historical simulations as part of coursework. In higher education, business students may participate in stock-market simulations, while medical students train using diagnosis games. In professional settings, corporate training often employs scenario-based digital games or live-action role-play to foster workplace competencies. Even in healthcare, GBL supports skill development, as seen in patient-care simulations for nursing trainees. In all cases, the game itself serves as the core vehicle for learning—whether a science class uses an ecology game to facilitate inquiry or a leadership workshop employs cooperative strategy games to encourage collaboration. Both digital and analogue formats—video games, board games, or live-action role-play—are encompassed within GBL, provided gameplay is central to the learning experience.
When thoughtfully designed, GBL offers numerous benefits. Chief among these are heightened learner engagement and motivation, as students frequently invest more time and effort in tasks they find intrinsically enjoyable and immersive. Games also supply immediate feedback through points, progress indicators, or narrative consequences, allowing learners to adjust and reflect upon their decisions in real time. Furthermore, games create a psychologically safe environment for failure, encouraging experimentation and resilience by allowing repeated attempts without real-world penalties (Kinephanos, n.d.). They also contextualise knowledge dynamically, fostering critical thinking and problem-solving. Multiple studies have demonstrated that well-aligned GBL experiences can enhance knowledge retention and even academic performance (Academia.edu, n.d.). In sum, GBL blends the motivational power of play with rigorous instructional intent—when balanced carefully, it offers rich, enduring learning experiences.
Game-Enhanced Learning (GEL)
Game-Enhanced Learning (GEL) refers to the educational use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) games—games originally designed for entertainment rather than instruction—within formal learning environments (IGI Global, n.d.). Rather than relying on custom-built educational games, educators adapt existing popular games to enrich engagement and foster deeper understanding. For instance, SimCity may be employed to teach urban planning concepts, while massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) like World of Warcraft might be used to support foreign language acquisition in immersive settings (University of Waterloo, n.d.). One formal definition describes GEL as “the application of commercial or off-the-shelf (COTS) digital games that are not purposefully designed for educational purposes” within learning contexts (IGI Global, n.d.). The term reflects a growing recognition that entertainment games often contain richly simulated environments, compelling narratives, and problem-solving challenges that can, when strategically employed, produce meaningful learning experiences. Notably, some early 2010s scholars such as Ott et al. (2013) defined GEL more broadly, conceptualising it as a subset of serious games with defined educational outcomes (Dspacecris, n.d.). However, contemporary usage typically centres on repurposing vernacular games for educational gain.
While GEL offers an appealing strategy for harnessing learners’ pre-existing enthusiasm for games, it also presents several challenges. Most notably, COTS games are not designed with pedagogy in mind. As a result, the onus lies with the educator to effectively frame and debrief the gameplay experience to ensure alignment with curricular goals. Without deliberate instructional scaffolding—such as guided reflection or theory-linked assignments—students may enjoy the activity yet fail to internalise key learning objectives. Critics caution that simply incorporating a commercial game into the classroom does not constitute inherently meaningful instruction. In fact, poorly structured GEL activities risk becoming time-wasting diversions (University of Waterloo, n.d.). The theoretical strength of GEL rests on intentional integration: gameplay should be a catalyst for learning, not a substitute. Educators must resist tokenistic implementations (e.g. “we played a game, so we innovated!”) and instead anchor game use in specific outcomes, reflective practices, and critical connections to course content.
Despite these caveats, GEL has been successfully applied across various domains. In primary and secondary education, titles like Minecraft, Roblox, and Civilization have been adapted to support instruction in subjects ranging from mathematics and physics to storytelling and history. At the tertiary level, educators have used games like Portal to illustrate principles of momentum and gravity in physics courses, or employed interactive fiction to provoke literary analysis of narrative and decision-making. In corporate training, GEL sometimes appears metaphorically—such as in team-building workshops where participants reflect on group dynamics observed during gameplay—though custom-designed serious games are more commonly used in this space. In healthcare, GEL plays a role in both therapeutic and educational contexts. Rehabilitation specialists have utilised Wii Sports to support motor skill development in a gamified setting, while mental health professionals have investigated commercial games for stress relief or social training applications (Kinephanos, n.d.).
GEL shares many of the engagement benefits associated with Game-Based Learning, but often at a lower cost, since it repurposes games already available on the market. Learner motivation tends to be high, as students are typically excited by the prospect of playing popular games within academic or training contexts. Additionally, COTS games often boast high production values—offering detailed graphics, immersive storylines, and complex gameplay—that enrich learning by creating more authentic and emotionally engaging environments. GEL also serves as a bridge between informal and formal learning: students may draw upon personal experiences with games played at home (e.g. strategic thinking developed in StarCraft) and connect them with academic content. This is particularly evident in language learning, where social online games have been shown to increase communicative competence and real-world language use (METU, n.d.). Ultimately, GEL validates learners’ interests, meets them in familiar cultural spaces, and demonstrates that education can be playful, relevant, and transformative.
Gamification
Gamification refers to the application of game design elements—such as point systems, badges, leaderboards, avatars, and timed challenges—to non-game contexts in order to enhance motivation and engagement (University of Waterloo, n.d.). Unlike Game-Based Learning (GBL), which centres on using full games as learning vehicles, gamification overlays game-like mechanics onto existing activities without converting them into games in the full sense. A seminal definition by Deterding et al. (2011) frames gamification as “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (JMIR, 2011). In practice, this might involve transforming a training module into a quest, awarding digital badges for completing an online course, or introducing a leaderboard in a sales team to foster healthy competition. The aim is to harness the motivational power inherent in games—achievement, status, curiosity, and progression—to enrich traditionally non-playful domains such as education, business, or healthcare.
Despite its popularity, gamification has been widely critiqued for its tendency toward superficial implementation. It has been described as overhyped, with the term often used loosely and without adequate theoretical grounding. A common shortcoming lies in over-reliance on extrinsic rewards such as points and badges, which may undermine intrinsic motivation by shifting the learner’s focus from the inherent value of the activity to the pursuit of superficial achievements (Faculty Focus, n.d.). Researchers have warned that this can result in diminished long-term engagement and learning depth. As one critical review from Educause notes, gamification is a “double-edged sword”: while easy to apply, it is far more difficult to make a gamified experience as compelling as a genuine game (Educause, n.d.). Game designer Ian Bogost has gone so far as to term it “exploitationware,” asserting that gamification often reduces to a marketing tactic that manipulates users through shallow incentives. Furthermore, the ambiguity of the term creates confusion—does using Kahoot! for a quiz constitute gamification, or is it just playing a game? This fuzziness threatens to dilute the concept’s educational integrity. However, when implemented with care and grounded in frameworks like Self-Determination Theory, gamification can support autonomy, mastery, and purpose—key ingredients for meaningful engagement (Leiden Learning Innovation Centre, n.d.).
Gamification has been adopted widely across educational and professional contexts. In K–12 settings, teachers gamify classrooms by introducing point-based systems for homework, using platforms like ClassDojo or Kahoot! to award digital badges, or even implementing year-long gamified learning journeys in which students “level up” as they master skills. In higher education, some instructors have transformed grading systems into experience points (XP), allowing students to “gain XP” for assignments rather than lose marks, thereby promoting a growth-oriented mindset (Pistone, n.d.). Universities have also gamified student orientation processes, library training modules, and co-curricular engagement using digital scavenger hunts and badge-based incentives. In the corporate sphere—arguably an early adopter—organisations use gamified e-learning platforms, sales leaderboards, and wellness apps to encourage productivity and behavioural change. Healthcare applications include fitness apps that reward physical activity, adherence-tracking programmes that incentivise medication compliance, and virtual rehab dashboards that provide visual progress cues and rewards.
When thoughtfully implemented, gamification can substantially increase motivation and engagement. Introducing goals, feedback systems, and light competition can enhance participation and enjoyment—students often complete more practice exercises when progress is visualised, and employees tend to engage more enthusiastically with training when they perceive a sense of achievement. Gamification also facilitates immediate feedback through progress bars or scoring mechanisms, helping learners assess and adjust their efforts in real time. Furthermore, it can foster a sense of community and social interaction, particularly when team-based challenges or collaborative leaderboards are used. In summary, gamification has the potential to transform passive learning or routine tasks into interactive, motivating experiences. However, its efficacy depends on careful alignment with pedagogical objectives and meaningful user engagement; game mechanics must serve the learning experience rather than supplant it (Paper, n.d.).
Serious Games
Serious games are defined as digital or analogue games developed with a primary objective other than entertainment, such as education, training, or social awareness (Zyda, 2005; Michael and Chen, 2006). Unlike gamification or commercial games used in the classroom, serious games are full-fledged systems with goals, rules, feedback mechanisms, and engaging gameplay – but underpinned by a non-entertainment purpose. The term was notably formalised in Clark Abt’s seminal book Serious Games (1970), though it only gained mainstream traction in the early 2000s with initiatives such as the Serious Games Initiative.
Michael and Chen (2006) define serious games as “games that do not have entertainment, enjoyment, or fun as their primary purpose,” while Zyda (2005) positions them as “mental contests” in the form of games, designed to further government or corporate training, public policy, health, or education objectives. Serious games may thus include everything from military simulations and medical training apps to classroom-based educational games and advocacy-focused digital experiences.
Yet, the concept is not without criticism. Some argue the label “serious game” is too broad, encompassing products as divergent as simple maths drills and sophisticated virtual reality surgery simulators. The oxymoronic tone of the phrase has long drawn philosophical critique – even Huizinga (1938) questioned whether play could ever be “serious” in its essence. Furthermore, some applications of the label seem opportunistic: products that are instructional but unengaging have sometimes been packaged as serious games despite lacking robust game design. Critics refer to these as “chocolate-covered broccoli” – games that poorly mask educational content with superficial mechanics (Bogost, 2007). Others highlight the danger of treating the label as a guarantee of effectiveness, without proper integration of pedagogical principles.
Despite these challenges, research increasingly affirms the unique affordances of serious games. They excel at experiential learning, allowing learners to engage with complex systems, make decisions, and see consequences unfold in safe simulated environments (Shaffer et al., 2005). This is vital in high-stakes fields like aviation or medicine, where risk-free practice is essential. Games such as Foldit (a protein-folding puzzle game) and Re-Mission (for cancer education) illustrate how serious games can produce both behavioural and cognitive gains (Zyda, 2005; Michael and Chen, 2006).
Crucially, serious games also tap into affective domains. Games can evoke emotions, foster empathy, and allow for embodied engagement – which, in turn, enhances retention and learner motivation. This is particularly valuable for teaching complex topics such as ethics, teamwork, or crisis response (Plass, Homer and Kinzer, 2015). Additionally, serious games increasingly incorporate analytics and feedback mechanisms, giving educators insights into student progress and behaviour (Gee, 2003). Serious games are widely implemented across education (e.g. Oregon Trail; CodeCombat), military and corporate training (e.g. America’s Army; management simulators), and healthcare (e.g. VR surgical training; physical rehabilitation via exergames). While educational games are a subset of serious games, the latter umbrella includes broader applications in public policy, health, and defence.
In conclusion, serious games represent a compelling fusion of interactive design and purposeful learning. However, they must not be treated as a pedagogical panacea or buzzword. True serious games demand rigour in both game design and instructional effectiveness. Their impact hinges on this dual commitment to game quality and serious intent.
Educational Games
Educational games are a subset of serious games explicitly designed to support learning outcomes, typically in academic subjects or cognitive skill development. Unlike gamification—which adds game elements to non-game activities—educational games are full-fledged games where the gameplay itself delivers the instruction. These games can be digital (like Math Blaster or Kerbal Space Program) or analog (such as educational board games), and they are typically aligned with formal or informal curricula. As Yudintseva (2015) defines, educational games are focused on “formal or informal learning objectives” and often feature curriculum alignment, assessments, and learning analytics.
Despite their promise, educational games have faced long-standing critiques. Chief among them is the “chocolate-covered broccoli” effect—games that superficially add play to what are essentially rote exercises. Early edutainment titles often interrupted gameplay for didactic drills, undermining player engagement and learning transfer. These missteps led to scepticism among educators, especially during the ed-tech boom of the 1990s and 2000s when many so-called educational games lacked both pedagogical and ludic integrity. This oversaturation contributed to definitional ambiguity and diminished trust in the label “educational game”.
Today, educational games are used widely across age groups and disciplines. In K–12 education, they help learners practise arithmetic, spelling, science, and reading through interactive environments. Titles like Oregon Trail, Typing of the Dead, and CodeCombat have become classics in the genre. In higher education, while less common, they are applied in disciplines like language learning, medicine, and engineering—often through gamified apps or VR-enhanced simulations. Even in corporate training or public health campaigns, games targeting skills acquisition or awareness-raising can be classified as educational when they centre on learning goals.
Well-designed educational games offer several pedagogical advantages. They convert repetition into engaging practice, often with adaptive difficulty that personalises the learning journey. Immediate feedback and reward mechanisms—core features of games—boost motivation and reinforce progress. They also contextualise abstract concepts: slicing virtual pizzas to understand fractions, for example, or navigating a story world to improve reading comprehension. Additionally, these games encourage active learning, requiring learners to explore, decide, and reflect—activities that support deeper understanding and knowledge retention.
In sum, educational games hold significant potential to revitalise learning experiences, especially when designed with equal attention to game mechanics and educational value. However, they must be scrutinised for both their instructional integrity and their capacity to engage, lest they become either ineffective study tools or ineffective games.
Persuasive Games
Persuasive games are a distinct subset of serious games designed with the explicit intention to influence players' opinions, attitudes, or behaviours through gameplay. Coined and theorised by Ian Bogost (2007), these games rely on what he calls procedural rhetoric—the idea that a game’s rules and systems themselves can embody arguments and thereby persuade players not merely through narrative but through interaction. Rather than simply delivering content or facts, persuasive games aim to provoke thought, foster empathy, or catalyse behavioural change by immersing players in systems that simulate real-world processes and dilemmas. Examples of persuasive games range from Darfur is Dying, which simulates the plight of refugees, to Papers, Please, which places the player in the role of an immigration officer navigating moral complexities. Even advergames—games created to promote brands or consumer behaviour—fall within this category when they seek to subtly shape preferences or reinforce values. These games often overlap with “games for change” or “social impact games,” particularly when used in public awareness campaigns, activism, education, or health interventions.
Due to their persuasive intent, such games naturally traverse subjective and sometimes contentious terrain. A central critique concerns bias and transparency: persuasive games embed particular viewpoints within their mechanics. When the underlying message is too overt or one-sided, the game risks alienating players and veering into propaganda. Bogost (2007) highlights a distinction between games that support institutional worldviews—such as those sponsored by governments or corporations—and those that critique such structures. Trust in the message often hinges on this distinction. Furthermore, there are epistemological challenges: how much can a brief gameplay session genuinely shift long-held beliefs or attitudes? Measuring the efficacy of such games remains difficult, particularly when considering long-term behavioural change. Moreover, simplification is a recurrent design constraint. To operationalise complex issues into game systems, designers may reduce multidimensional problems (e.g., poverty or climate change) into tractable variables—risking misrepresentation or reductive understanding. Games like Spent, which simulate low-income budgeting, are impactful yet necessarily abstract representations of systemic issues.
In educational settings, persuasive games are commonly deployed in disciplines such as social studies, environmental science, and ethics. For instance, PeaceMaker has been used to explore Middle East peace negotiations, while Climate Challenge prompts students to consider policy decisions around global warming. Literature and civics classes have used games like Papers, Please to explore moral ambiguity and state power. In higher education, persuasive games often serve dual roles: both as pedagogical tools and as objects of critical study. Media studies or political science courses may ask students to deconstruct or create persuasive games as part of learning about rhetoric and systems thinking. In health sciences, games may seek to reduce stigma, promote healthy habits, or build empathy—for example, games that simulate chronic illness to educate future healthcare workers. In corporate and marketing contexts, persuasive design manifests through advergames or internal training games. A sustainability-focused workplace game might persuade employees to adopt eco-friendly behaviours, while consumer-facing mini-games aim to build brand loyalty or subtly promote product benefits. These contexts often value message retention and behavioural nudges more than overt attitude shifts.
Persuasive games offer several advantages over traditional media. First, they engage players affectively and cognitively, often creating more lasting impressions than didactic texts or lectures. Because players must act within the constraints of a system, they gain insight into the logic of social, economic, or political structures—a concept central to procedural rhetoric. Such experiences can build empathy. Playing as someone facing systemic challenges can provoke deeper understanding than passively receiving information. Additionally, persuasive games invite reflection through choice-making and feedback: players see the outcomes of their decisions, prompting internal dialogue and discussion. In public engagement and health promotion, they may also increase user interaction and time-on-task more than static campaigns, contributing to higher message salience and retention. Finally, persuasive games diversify discourse by offering interactive spaces for debate and critique. They serve not only as rhetorical artefacts but as platforms for inquiry, making visible the often-hidden assumptions embedded in systems. When followed by structured debriefing or reflection, persuasive games can significantly enrich learning environments and civic dialogue.
Immersive Learning
Immersive learning refers to instructional experiences designed to deeply engage learners in simulated or virtual environments, often employing emerging technologies such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), or broader XR (Extended Reality) solutions. The aim of immersive learning is to cultivate a strong sense of presence—where learners feel as though they are “there”—so that they engage with content in a direct, first-person, and multi-sensory fashion. Immersive experiences span a wide spectrum: a VR training programme might place a learner inside a simulated factory to practise machinery maintenance; an AR overlay might project anatomical structures onto a patient in real time for medical students; or even physical environments like mock courtrooms or escape-room-style challenges may be classed as immersive if they fully surround learners in contextually rich scenarios. The term is increasingly associated with XR, which serves as an umbrella for technologies that extend, simulate, or augment reality through digital layers (Roundtable Learning, n.d.). Whether through a virtual chemistry lab, an AR museum tour, or a gamified simulation, immersive learning is marked by high-intensity, active engagement, often eliciting states of flow or heightened focus.
However, despite its potential, immersive learning is not immune to critique—particularly in relation to the hype surrounding it. A key concern is the overuse of the term, which risks diluting its meaning when applied indiscriminately. Not every VR or AR experience is pedagogically sound, and immersion alone does not ensure effective learning. The novelty of being “in” a 3D environment can dazzle without delivering meaningful outcomes unless grounded in strong instructional design. This technocentric bias—that immersion is inherently beneficial—obscures the need for clarity of purpose and careful scaffolding. Learners may be captivated by the medium yet retain little substantive knowledge if guidance is absent. Additionally, accessibility remains a challenge. High-end immersive technologies often come with prohibitive costs and logistical demands that not all institutions can meet, potentially exacerbating educational inequalities. Some users may experience motion sickness, fatigue, or technical frustrations that disrupt learning rather than enhance it. The field is also marked by a lack of consensus on an established pedagogical framework. While immersive learning often draws from constructivist and situated learning theories, empirical research on best practices remains in flux. Evaluation and assessment in immersive contexts can be difficult, particularly in open-ended scenarios where traditional metrics do not apply easily. Moreover, the pedagogical premise of “immersion” predates modern technology—role-play, drama, and imaginative field trips have long offered deep learning through experiential means. Thus, there is an argument that the label ‘immersive learning’ may sometimes be inflated, especially when applied to relatively simple tools like panoramic videos or basic simulations.
Nonetheless, immersive learning offers distinct advantages when implemented with care. Chief among these is its ability to promote intense engagement and cognitive absorption. Learners immersed in a virtual scenario often enter a state of flow, where focused attention and intrinsic motivation converge, reducing distractions and enhancing learning efficiency (Leiden Learning Innovation Centre, n.d.). The experiential quality of immersion also boosts memory retention; learners are more likely to recall events they have virtually enacted compared to those merely read or observed. This is particularly beneficial in fields requiring procedural or spatial understanding, such as medicine, engineering, or architecture. Multi-modal stimulation—visual, auditory, and kinesthetic—reinforces learning and often evokes emotional responses, which in turn aid recall. Immersive platforms offer the unique advantage of safe engagement with high-risk or otherwise inaccessible scenarios: fighting a simulated fire, conducting hazardous experiments, or exploring lost civilisations are all possible without real-world risk (Educause, n.d.). This opens new pedagogical possibilities, especially for spatially complex or emotionally sensitive learning. Furthermore, immersive environments support contextualised learning in disciplines like intercultural communication or language studies, where role-playing in a simulated setting mirrors real-world complexity and nuance. In terms of motivation, students frequently report high levels of enjoyment and curiosity in immersive settings, which increases time-on-task and willingness to engage with challenging content. In some respects, XR-based tools can also promote equity by expanding access to rare, distant, or costly experiences—such as visiting global museums or encountering rare medical cases—through simulation. Immersive learning thus helps to collapse the boundaries between classroom and world, rendering learning more authentic, memorable, and meaningful. Yet for it to realise this promise, it must be led by pedagogy, not technology; it must include alternate access routes for those with disabilities or limited means; and it must be held to standards of learning effectiveness, not just innovation for its own sake.
Conclusion: Toward Thoughtful Application of Gameful Learning
In surveying these terms and trends – from game-based learning to gamification – a common thread emerges: the power of play and engagement to enrich education. Each concept, in its own way, challenges the notion that learning must be drudgery. Instead, they show that learning can be active, joyful, challenging, immersive, and deeply rewarding. Yet, as this piece has argued, simply tapping into or adopting the latest buzzword or tool is not enough. Clear conceptual distinctions matter. We must resist flattening these ideas into one nebulous fad; the nuance between an educational game and a gamified system, or between doing a simulation and cultivating a playful mindset, is crucial for designing the right experience for the right context.
Each approach brings unique strengths: GBL and serious games provide rich experiential learning, gamification offers motivational scaffolding, simulation games deliver realistic practice, persuasive games inspire reflection and change, and immersive XR learning opens new worlds of experience. Used thoughtfully, these are not just techniques to boost test scores or compliance metrics – they are avenues to transform learning into something more student-centered and impactful. A gamified app might turn homework into an adventure rather than a chore; a serious game might ignite a lifelong passion for science; a VR training might save a life by better preparing a surgeon; a ludic classroom might rekindle a burned-out student’s love of learning.
The overuse or misuse of these terms often signals a lack of deeper understanding. By defining and critiquing them as I’ve done, we equip ourselves (as educators, trainers, or policymakers) to apply them with intent. This means setting clear learning objectives and then asking: Which approach (or combination) best serves these goals and this group of learners? It means measuring outcomes and being willing to iterate – just as a game designer would tweak levels or mechanics to improve player experience, an educator should refine a game-based lesson based on student feedback and performance. In educational settings – from a rural elementary school to a global corporation’s training department – the call is the same: be playful but purposeful. Embrace what games and play can offer, but ground their use in sound pedagogy and genuine respect for learner needs. This work advocates for a future in which terms like GBL, gamification, and immersive learning are not trendy ‘extras’, but integrated facets of a rich learning ecosystem. In that future, we won’t need to justify playing a game in class as “okay because it teaches X” – it will be understood that a well-chosen game is rigorous teaching, and that joy and learning reinforce each other rather than oppose.
To get there, we need educators and leaders who are literate in these concepts, who can champion clear terminology and share success stories (and failures) with the broader community. We need continued research from scholars and insight from practitioners to refine best practices.
…And we need a learner-centric mindset, remembering what it’s like to be engrossed in play or story, and harnessing that power for education.
To facilitate understanding, the following table summarises the key differences and overlaps of terms explored in this article:
| Term | Definition / Focus | Primary Use | Examples | Key Features |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GBL (Game-Based Learning) | Learning through games designed for education | Formal education, skill development | Minecraft: Education Edition, DragonBox | Game is primary learning tool, encourages exploration |
| GEL (Game-Enhanced Learning) | Games enhance learning, not primary method | Higher education, training | Civilization, Kerbal Space Program | Supports learning, not designed for education |
| Gamification | Game elements in non-game contexts | Workplace training, e-learning | Duolingo XP, Kahoot! quizzes | Adds motivation, no full game mechanics |
| Serious Games | Non-entertainment purposes, incl. education | Professional training, awareness | Foldit, Re-Mission, Peacemaker | Defined objectives, balances fun and learning |
| Educational Games | Games designed for education | K–12, STEM, language learning | Oregon Trail, CodeCombat | Built for instruction, aligned with curricula |
| Simulation Games | Simulate real-world processes | Medical, military training | SimCity, Flight Simulator | Realistic, interactive, training-oriented |
| Persuasive Games | Influence opinions or behavior | Social activism, politics | Papers, Please, That Dragon, Cancer | Narrative-driven, emotional impact, reflection |
| Immersive Learning | VR/AR/XR for deep engagement | VR classrooms, corporate training | Google Expeditions VR, Tilt Brush | Digital immersion, enhances retention |
References
Academia.edu, n.d. Game-based learning and student engagement: A review of the literature. [online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu [Accessed 7 May 2025].
Bogost, I., 2007. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clark, R.E., 2003. Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L., 2011. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference. ACM, pp. 9–15. [online] Available at: https://www.jmir.org [Accessed 7 May 2025].
Dspacecris, n.d. Game-enhanced learning: From edutainment to serious games. [online] Available at: https://dspacecris.eurocris.org [Accessed 7 May 2025].
Educause, n.d. 7 things you should know about gamification. [online] Available at: https://er.educause.edu [Accessed 7 May 2025].
Faculty Focus, n.d. The unintended consequences of gamification in education. [online] Available at: https://www.facultyfocus.com [Accessed 7 May 2025].
Gee, J.P., 2003. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Huizinga, J., 1938. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
IGI Global, n.d. Definition of game-enhanced learning. [online] Available at: https://www.igi-global.com [Accessed 7 May 2025].
JMIR, 2011. Defining gamification for health and wellbeing. [online] Available at: https://www.jmir.org [Accessed 7 May 2025].
Kinephanos, n.d. Serious games and procedural rhetoric. [online] Available at: https://www.kinephanos.ca [Accessed 7 May 2025].
Leiden Learning Innovation Centre, n.d. Immersive learning and motivation. [online] Available at: https://www.leidenlearninginnovation.org [Accessed 7 May 2025].
METU, n.d. The role of social online games in foreign language motivation. [online] Available at: https://open.metu.edu.tr [Accessed 7 May 2025].
Michael, D. and Chen, S., 2006. Serious Games: Games That Educate, Train, and Inform. Boston: Thomson Course Technology.
Paper.co, n.d. Game-based learning explained. [online] Available at: https://www.paper.co [Accessed 7 May 2025].
Pistone, A., n.d. Gamified grading in higher education. [online] Available at: https://www.amypistone.com [Accessed 7 May 2025].
Plass, J.L., Homer, B.D. and Kinzer, C.K., 2015. Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), pp.258–283.
Prensky, M., 2001. Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Roundtable Learning, n.d. What is immersive learning?. [online] Available at: https://www.roundtablelearning.com [Accessed 7 May 2025].
Shaffer, D.W., Squire, K., Halverson, R. and Gee, J.P., 2005. Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), pp.104–111.
University of Waterloo, n.d. Centre for Teaching Excellence – Games and learning. [online] Available at: https://uwaterloo.ca [Accessed 7 May 2025].
Yudintseva, A., 2015. Educational video games as a form of e-learning: A review of recent research. The Journal of Language and Education, 1(2), pp.14–21.
Zyda, M., 2005. From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer, 38(9), pp.25–32.
