Low-tech serious games in higher education: bridging the digital divide and enhancing student thinking and performance

Research hypothesis and the subject
Building on previous discussions, the case study has two primary objectives: (1) to design serious games in low-tech and low-cost environments and (2) to evaluate whether these games can improve student performance compared to traditional lectures. The central argument of this study is that the critical determinant of learning outcomes is whether students are encouraged to think critically when encountering new concepts. In traditional lectures, students tend to receive information from the teacher passively. They may struggle to retain and fully understand new material without active engagement or self-exploration. This study advocates integrating inquiry-based learning into serious game design to create opportunities for deeper thinking and improved performance. Accordingly, the primary research hypothesis is as follows:
“Before introducing new concepts, teachers should encourage students to approach problems with their unique perspectives or experiences. The inquiry-based, trial-and-error process can stimulate students’ thinking, enhance their understanding of new knowledge, and improve learning outcomes.”
To test this hypothesis, this study developed two types of serious games: Quiz Games and Match Games. Both games incorporate inquiry-based learning and trial-and-error processes to promote critical thinking about new knowledge. These games were designed and implemented in low-tech, low-cost environments and applied to the Introduction to Design Principles course, a required course for first-year students. This course was selected for several reasons:
-
(1)
Theory-based content: As a theory-heavy course, it introduces fundamental design principles. Students often feel less motivated in theory courses than hands-on learning experiences, making it an ideal candidate for serious games.
-
(2)
Interdisciplinary scope: The course covers a wide range of topics, including design history, aesthetics, technology, and human factors. This allows the results to have broader implications across multiple domains and subjects.
-
(3)
Division into two classes: Due to the large number of students, the course was split into two sections (Class A and Class B). This division facilitated the comparison between the experimental and control groups, making it easier to evaluate the effectiveness of the serious games.
By incorporating serious games into the Introduction to Design Principles course, this study aims to determine whether fostering active thinking and utilizing trial-and-error methods can enhance student learning outcomes and motivation.
Experimental procedure and participants
The experimental procedure involved three key steps: implementing serious games and traditional lectures, comparing and analyzing student scores, and conducting a questionnaire survey. The steps are detailed below:
-
(1)
Implementation of serious games and traditional lectures: The Introduction to Design Principles course was divided into four units. Units 1 (Human Factors) and 2 (Industrial Design) were taught during the first half of the semester, with Quiz Games used for the experimental group and traditional lectures for the control group. Units 3 (Public Arts) and 4 (Architecture) were taught later in the semester, with Match Games for the experimental group and traditional lectures for the control group. During these four experiments, Class A and Class B alternated as the experimental group (see Fig. 1). Classroom observations noted students’ engagement, including dozing off, smartphone use, and reactions to the learning activities.
Fig. 1 The framework of experiments for comparing traditional lectures and the proposed serious games.
-
(2)
Comparison of student performance: Student performance was assessed through paper-and-pencil tests administered within two weeks of completing each unit without prior notice to students. The study used four cross-class comparisons (i to iv) and four within-subjects comparisons (v to viii) (see Fig. 1). Cross-class comparisons involving different student samples were analyzed using an independent sample t-test to assess score differences. Within-subject comparisons using the same sample groups were analyzed using a paired sample t-test. These comparisons helped determine whether significant differences existed between student performance in serious games versus traditional lectures.
-
(3)
Questionnaire survey: After completing all units and exams, a questionnaire was conducted to assess whether the proposed games stimulated student thinking and motivation. The survey included closed-ended, multiple-choice questions. The arithmetic means and standard deviations of these responses were analyzed to clarify students’ views on the games and learning. Additionally, correlation analysis was applied to explore the relationship between thinking stimulation, learning motivation, and memory retention.
The study involved 72 students in Class A and 77 in Class B, all majoring in information communication. Introduction to Design Principles is a first-year required course, primarily composed of students aged 19–20. Class A included 33 males and 39 females, while Class B included 40 males and 37 females.
In addition to a close gender balance, the students in both classes shared similar baseline characteristics, supporting meaningful comparisons between the experimental and control groups. First, they generally scored in the low to middle range on the college entrance exam among domestic candidates. Although individual admission scores varied slightly, the department ensured that the overall academic level of the two classes was roughly equivalent by dividing students based on odd and even student numbers randomly distributed by the university. Secondly, as the students had not been previously exposed to the course content in Introduction to Design Principles, this course provided a fresh learning experience for all students, resulting in comparable levels of prerequisite knowledge across the two classes. Lastly, students had already experienced two weeks of preliminary lessons before the experimental units began. Classroom observations during these initial weeks noted no major differences in engagement behaviors (e.g., smartphone use, dozing off) across groups. The above factors indicate that the two classes’ academic readiness and engagement levels were well-matched, supporting the study’s comparability.
Design of two serious games
The Quiz Game and Match Game were both inquiry-based and included a trial-and-error process, allowing students to explore problems before being introduced to new concepts.
-
Quiz Game: This game was straightforward to operate. Lecture slides were divided into approximately ten concepts, with one to three multiple-choice questions designed for each concept. The teacher posed these questions before presenting the relevant slides, and students answered based on their inferences. Importantly, no ad-hoc digital systems were required. The only technological tools used were a computer with PowerPoint and a projector. Printed posters could easily replace the slides for schools with limited access to technology.
Figure 2 illustrates an example from the Quiz Game. The experimental group was first presented with a question about percentiles in the Human Factors unit before viewing the explanation slide. This approach encouraged students to engage in problem-solving before receiving the formal lesson. In contrast, the control group viewed the slide directly without any pre-questioning. In the Quiz Game, students worked in teams of five to seven, and teams that answered three consecutive questions correctly earned points toward their final grade. This process encouraged student interaction and inquiry-based learning. The teacher alternated between asking questions and presenting explanations to maintain student engagement and avoid prolonged passive listening.
Fig. 2 An example of instructional materials in Unit 1 (Human Factors) for the traditional lecture and the Quiz Game.
-
Match Game: In the Match Game, students were tasked with assembling pieces of information rather than answering questions. The teacher divided key concepts into smaller segments, and students worked in teams to match them. For instance, in the Architecture unit, students in the experimental group were given printed materials, including 16 images of architectural works, names of architects, locations of buildings, and clues such as structure and symbolism. They then worked collaboratively for 40 min without using the internet.
Figure 3 provides an example from the Architecture unit. Students in the experimental group had to match building images with clues, while the control group learned the material directly through lecture slides. The Match Game allowed students to engage with the content in a hands-on, exploratory way. Once the task was completed, the teacher revealed the correct answers using slides and awarded points to the top three teams.
Fig. 3 An example of instructional materials in Unit 4 (Architecture) for the traditional lecture and the Match Game.
Both games aimed to enhance critical thinking by allowing students to explore and infer knowledge before it was formally introduced.
Student performance
Figure 1 illustrates the eight comparisons of student scores. As previously mentioned, an independent sample t-test was used for cross-class comparisons (i) to (iv), as shown in Table 1. In contrast, a paired sample t-test was applied to within-subject comparisons (v) to (viii), as shown in Table 2. Students absent from serious games or traditional lectures were excluded to ensure the accuracy of the analysis.
Table 1 reveals that comparisons (i), (iii), and (iv) show significant improvements in student performance in serious games (p < 0.001). However, comparison (ii) shows no significant difference (p = 0.340). The mean difference in comparison (i) is 11.34 points, while comparisons (iii) and (iv) show even more considerable improvements, with mean differences of 25.47 and 15.85 points, respectively. This indicates that the Match Game had a more pronounced impact on student performance than the Quiz Game.
For within-subject comparisons, Table 2 demonstrates that comparisons (v), (vii), and (viii) show significant differences between traditional lectures and serious games (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). However, comparison (vi) did not show a significant difference (p = 0.298). Like Table 1, the Match Game led to more significant improvements in student scores than the Quiz Game.
In summary, six of the eight comparisons indicated significant improvements in performance with serious games compared to traditional lectures. The two comparisons associated with the Quiz Game did not show significant improvements in student scores, while all comparisons linked to the Match Game demonstrated notable gains in performance.
Table 3 presents the average number of unanswered and incorrect responses on the tests. The data indicates that students taking serious games retained more information than those in traditional lecture-based classes. Across all units, students from gamified classes had fewer unanswered questions than those from lecture-based classes. Except for Unit 2, incorrect responses were also lower in the gamified groups.
Questionnaire survey
The questionnaire received 81 responses and consisted of ten mandatory and closed-ended multiple-choice questions. Nine of these questions used a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represented “strongly disagree” and 5 represented “strongly agree.” The final question asked students to choose their preferred teaching method (serious games or traditional lectures). Table 4 presents the detailed results for each question.
The average score for whether the games spurred thinking (Q9) was 3.93, suggesting that students generally agreed that the inquiry-based processes positively affected their thinking. The standard deviation of 0.91 indicates some variation in student opinions, but the overall trend remained favorable. Regarding whether the games helped students remember content (Q1) and whether they increased learning motivation (Q2), the average scores were 3.99 and 3.69, respectively, both reflecting positive attitudes. However, the standard deviations of 1.03 (Q1) and 1.25 (Q2) indicate that some students had differing views.
To further investigate whether stimulating thinking also enhanced memory retention or learning motivation, a correlation analysis was conducted between Q9 and Q1, as well as Q9 and Q2. Table 5 shows that there is a significant correlation between spurring thinking (Q9) and aiding memory (Q1) (p < 0.001), with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.468, which is generally considered a moderate correlation. Similarly, there is a moderate but significant correlation between spurring thinking (Q9) and provoking motivation (Q2) (p < 0.001), with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.531. These results suggest that inquiry-based and trial-and-error processes not only stimulate students’ thinking but might also help them better remember course content and increase their motivation to learn.
Regarding teaching preferences, 67.9% of students preferred the proposed serious games, while 32.1% favored traditional lectures. To explore whether conceptual confusion during the games influenced students’ preference for teaching methods, a correlation analysis was conducted between students’ preferences and their responses to whether the games caused knowledge confusion (Q5). A Mann–Whitney U-test was applied since the Q5 responses were not normally distributed. Table 6 shows a significant correlation between students’ preference for teaching methods and their reported levels of knowledge confusion during the games (p < 0.001). Specifically, students who preferred traditional lectures were more likely to report confusion during the inquiry-based games. This suggests that conceptual confusion may influence some students to favor traditional lectures over serious games.
Explanations and implications
The student performance results and the number of unanswered questions aligned with the classroom observations made during the study. In traditional lectures for Units 1 and 2, 10 to 20 students intermittently dozed off or were distracted by their smartphones. However, introducing the Quiz Game reduced this number to about 5 to 7 students, as the game encouraged discussion and interaction. Despite this improvement, some students resorted to using their smartphones when their teams took longer to answer the questions, leading to occasional disengagement.
The gap in student engagement between traditional lectures and serious games widened as the course progressed. In Units 3 and 4, nearly half of the students in the control group fell asleep during traditional lectures, likely due to increased assignments from other courses and more extracurricular activities. This also explains the rising number of absences, which reduced the sample sizes in Tables 1 and 2. In contrast, students participating in the Match Game remained highly engaged, with none dozing off, as they were actively involved in discussing and classifying instructional materials. During the Match Game, students eagerly responded to the answers, as they were keen to validate their guesses and share their perspectives with their teams.
Both the Match Game and Quiz Game led to higher levels of student engagement and interaction compared to traditional lectures. However, the Match Game, which involved hands-on activities, was particularly effective in maintaining student focus. Although serious games enhanced participation and engagement, there was no significant improvement in student scores for Unit 2. This suggests that the performance of Class B did not decline after removing the Quiz Game, nor did Class A improve significantly after participating in it. The Unit 2 examination took place before mid-semester, which could explain why Class B students may not have experienced a loss of focus due to extracurricular activities at that point.
Although Class A made some progress, their mean score was slightly lower than Class B’s in Unit 2. To better understand this, Table 3 was analyzed. In Unit 2, Class A had fewer unanswered questions (3.27) than Class B (3.88), but Class A also had more incorrect answers (5.54 compared to Class B’s 4.60). This discrepancy suggests that while Class A retained more information, they developed false memories or misunderstandings of the material, leading to lower scores. These results are consistent with the findings in Table 4, where some students indicated that inquiry-based learning could sometimes produce confusing ideas (Q5). A few students noted that while serious games helped them initially memorize new concepts, the retention did not last long, and without review, they struggled on tests. This highlights the importance of incorporating regular review sessions or assigning homework to reinforce students’ understanding.
Finally, both the Quiz Game and Match Game incorporated various game elements, such as goals and challenges, points, time constraints, and social interaction. However, classroom observations revealed that points played a relatively minor role in motivating students. Instead, students focused more on participating and interacting with their team members. Social engagement, driven by goals and challenges, emerged as the critical factor in the success of such games. The main difference between the Quiz Game and the Match Game was the scale and duration of the tasks. The Quiz Game involved answering individual questions, with the team’s challenge ending when they answered incorrectly. In contrast, the Match Game required sustained effort from every team member to piece together all the clues, resulting in deeper engagement and more significant interaction throughout the activity.
Based on this analysis, the proposed serious games did improve students’ learning performance. The inquiry-based learning and trial-and-error processes provided valuable opportunities for critical thinking, enhancing students’ motivation to learn. Therefore, the research hypothesis was supported. However, stimulating thinking also introduces the risk of knowledge confusion. Although most students agreed that learning by such interactive games is necessary (Q8, mean = 4.04), a few preferred traditional lectures due to the potential for confusion. Future iterations of these activities should include mechanisms to address this issue.
Finally, it is essential to note that the proposed serious games are low-tech. The only technology used was the teacher’s computer and projector; no additional digital systems or mobile devices were required. In environments without computer access, teachers can explain concepts using printed posters. The preparation of instructional materials is simple and low-cost, requiring only slides with questions and printed handouts or cards for the students.
link