Serious games in Science and Mathematics Education : a scoping umbrella review

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Serious games in Science and Mathematics Education : a scoping umbrella review © 2024 Ayaz Karimov, Mirka Saarela, Tommi Kärkkäinen Published version Karimov, Ayaz; Saarela, Mirka; Kärkkäinen, Tommi Karimov, A., Saarela, M., & Kärkkäinen, T. (2024). Serious games in Science and Mathematics Education : a scoping umbrella review. International Journal of Serious Games, 11(4), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v11i3.765 2024 International Journal of Serious Games I Volume 11, Issue 4, December 2024 3 International Journal of Serious Games ISSN: 2384-8766 https://journal.seriousgamessociety.org/ Article Serious games in science and mathematics education: a scoping umbrella review Ayaz Karimov,1 Mirka Saarela,1 and Tommi Kärkkäinen 1 1Faculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland {akarimov, mirka.saarela, tommi.karkkainen} @jyu.fi Keywords: Educational games Serious games Science education Mathematics education Literature review Umbrella review Received: April 2024 Accepted: October 2024 Published: November 2024 DOI: 10.17083/ijsg.v11i4.765 Abstract Many studies have reviewed the use of serious games as part of science and mathematics education. While previous reviews have focused on various educational levels and subjects, narrowing the scope to science and mathematics education provides targeted insights that can inform instructional strategies and curriculum development. In this study, we summarize 16 systematic reviews and meta-analyses with a total of 535 primary studies investigating the impacts of serious games in science and mathematics education. The papers analyzed reveal that serious games can motivate and engage students while helping improve their learning outcomes and cognitive skills. However, negative reports on the use of serious games in science and mathematics education, such as demotivation, anxiety, and limited effects on learning, are also observed. Overall, this study contributes to research on human–computer interaction by providing a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of serious games on students’ moods and learning outcomes in science and mathematics education, highlighting the role of teachers and proposing future research directions for game-based learning. 1. Introduction Many researchers have defined serious games, and a common aspect found across various definitions is that these games are designed to reach a certain goal rather than just provide entertainment [1, 24, 31, 59]. Serious games possess certain characteristics, such as being engaging and motivating, which make them efficient tools for implementation in various areas [10]. Within the realm of education, serious games have emerged as noteworthy tools that help facilitate the learning process in unique ways. These games not only improve soft skills but are also integrated into the teaching of core subjects, such as history [27, 66], science [17, 53, 65], and mathematics [7, 25, 62]. They enrich the educational experience, providing students with immersive and interactive learning opportunities across diverse academic disciplines. These learning opportunities are especially helpful in science and mathematics education, in which many students have difficulties comprehending related concepts [16]. Serious educational games can facilitate positive learning processes, as they help learners study a subject through an interactive, entertaining, and motivational pathway. 4 International Journal of Serious Games I Volume 11, Issue 4, December 2024 The utilization of serious games in the classroom has various effects on students’ behaviors and moods. The incorporation of game mechanisms or gamification elements into these serious games can significantly boost students’ motivation [46, 69] and confidence [14, 60] throughout the learning process. For example, one of the papers reviewed found that implementing serious games during the science course revision week had a transformative impact on lowperformance students. It provided them with a fresh perspective on the subject and motivated active participation not only during the game-playing sessions but also afterward [34]. Additionally, engagement is a critical factor in facilitating the effective comprehension of new concepts, and serious games excel at inspiring students to interact with educational resources. Numerous studies have reported positive outcomes when using serious games, indicating that students find the learning experience enjoyable [4, 35, 68]. In fact, one of the primary objectives of integrating games into the teaching or learning process is to achieve positive changes in learning outcomes [71]. However, it is essential to acknowledge that in certain cases, serious educational games have negative impacts, causing anxiety [2], jealousy [22], and feelings of failure [5]. If students lack motivation to participate in classroom games, their overall engagement in the learning process is adversely affected. As such, the influence of serious educational games on students’ behaviors remains a subject without a definitive conclusion [15]. Despite the promising benefits, the effectiveness of serious games, specifically in science and mathematics education, remains underexplored, particularly their impacts on students’ cognitive and affective–motivational outcomes. This study addresses such a gap by conducting a scoping umbrella review of existing studies on the use of serious games in these subjects. A learning outcome is prioritizing the essential knowledge and skills that students should acquire during the learning process [9]. According to the theoretical framework outlined by Battersby (1999), learning outcomes can be categorized into two main types: cognitive and affective–motivational. When mentioning learning outcomes in this study, we specifically address the cognitive aspect, encompassing conceptual or domain-specific knowledge, along with the capacity to remember, comprehend, and recall this acquired knowledge [50]. Researchers employ various methods to analyze the changes in learning outcomes when implementing serious educational games, such as conducting pretest–posttest designs in which they measure students’ grades before and after playing the games [33, 39, 48, 54]. Interestingly, while a group of studies reported a significant improvement in students’ grades because of educational games [18, 29, 43], another group of studies found no discernible effects on academic performance [20, 28]. It is crucial to recognize that each learner possesses unique characteristics and that their individual learning styles can differ significantly [32]. Therefore, instances in which students fail to achieve grade improvements through serious educational games may arise. However, such cases might be linked to specific game types or dynamics rather than to the overall efficacy of using games as learning tools [67]. As a result, reviewing the types of serious educational games that have been employed and gaining a comprehensive understanding of their impacts on learning outcomes are imperative. Serious games have emerged as significant educational tools because they enhance student engagement and learning outcomes in various subjects, including science and mathematics [76]. Recent studies have highlighted the role of adaptive gamification in making learning personalized and effective [77]. For instance, adaptive gamification frameworks can dynamically adjust the difficulty level and provide real-time feedback, catering to individual student needs and learning paces. Zourmpakis et al. (2022) highlighted the importance of teacher training in the successful implementation of these technologies by ensuring that educators are well equipped to integrate gamified learning strategies into their classrooms [78]. Complementing these findings, those by Hamari et al. (2016) demonstrated that gamification can significantly increase student motivation and engagement, particularly when integrated with adaptive learning technologies [79]. Moreover, Deterding et al. (2011) discussed the broad A. Karimov et al. International Journal of Serious Games I Volume 11, Issue 4, December 2024 5 implications of gamification in education, suggesting that well-designed game elements can foster critical thinking and problem-solving skills [80]. Collectively, these studies highlight the transformative potential of serious games and adaptive gamification in modern education, advocating for their broad adoption and integration into educational curricula. The serious games used in the education field can be classified into two types: digital and nondigital [23]. Digital serious games are played using technological equipment, such as tablets and computers. One example of this type of game is Prodigy, which is an immersive and adaptive online math game in which players create their customizable avatars; to defeat monsters, players must answer math questions correctly. Nondigital serious games, also known as traditional games, are played using physical components, such as dice, boards, cards, and other tangible materials. An example of this type of game is Monopoly, in which players trade properties, aiming to bankrupt opponents. This game teaches soft and hard skills in financial literacy, negotiation skills, and basic economic concepts. In this scoping umbrella review, we considered both digital and nondigital serious games to include all types of educational games. In addition to game type, another important factor in the implementation of serious educational games is teachers’ role, as teachers are among the key actors in the learning process [51]. The integration of serious games into educational curricula has gained significant attention because of their potential to enhance student engagement, motivation, and learning outcomes [81]. Despite the growing body of literature on the benefits of serious games in education, there remains a gap in understanding their specific impacts on science and mathematics education. This gap highlights the need for a comprehensive analysis of how serious games can be effectively implemented in these subjects to improve educational outcomes. The primary research problem addressed in the present study is the lack of a consolidated understanding of the impacts of serious games on student moods and learning outcomes in science and mathematics education. Additionally, there is a need to explore the role of teachers in the successful implementation of these educational tools. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive scoping umbrella review of existing research on serious games in these subjects by identifying both their positive and negative impacts and the critical role of educators. Our research focused solely on serious games, in contrast to previous studies that encompassed both gamification and serious games in their reviews [40, 70]. Gamification applies game elements to nongame contexts to enhance engagement, whereas serious games are complete games designed with a specific educational or training purpose in mind [36]. To our knowledge, no recent umbrella review has delved into the use of serious games in science and mathematics education. This study presents a scoping umbrella review aimed at summarizing the evidence from existing reviews and meta-analyses concerning the use and impacts of serious games in science and mathematics education. The review highlights key findings, explores the role of teachers in the implementation of serious games, and identifies potential gaps in the literature that warrant further investigation in future research. Within this framework, this study intends to answer the following research questions (RQs): • RQ1: What are the characteristics of review studies that investigate the impacts of educational games in science and mathematics education? • RQ2: What is the overall impact of educational games on students’ moods and learning outcomes in the domains of science and mathematics? • RQ3: How does teachers’ role influence the effectiveness of educational games in science and mathematics education? • RQ4: What areas need further investigation to enhance our understanding of the impacts of educational games in science and mathematics education? 6 International Journal of Serious Games I Volume 11, Issue 4, December 2024 2. Methodology Our aim was to provide an overview of published academic papers on the topic of using serious games in science and mathematics education and to report their positive and negative impacts on students’ moods and learning outcomes. We also analyzed teachers’ role in serious game implementation and the research gap in this field. For this purpose, we conducted a scoping umbrella review in which we reviewed previous papers on this topic. To conduct the review, we followed five steps: identifying the research questions and objectives, conducting a preliminary search, screening and selecting studies, charting the data, and reporting the results [45, 63]. The main reason why we decided to conduct a scoping umbrella review was that it evaluates a broad range of existing evidence by incorporating multiple systematic reviews or meta-analyses. We started our research by identifying the databases that we used to search for the papers, as well as setting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fig. 1 presents our review process based on the PRISMA statement [41]. Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of the reviews included in this scoping umbrella review. 2.1 Conducting a preliminary search We used the Scopus, Education Resources Information Center, Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, Directory of Open Access Journals, and Web of Science databases to collect publications that reviewed the use of serious games in science and mathematics education. The search was conducted using the following string: (“serious game*” OR “educational game*”) AND (“review” OR “meta-analysis”) AND (“school” OR “elementary” OR “primary” OR “secondary”). If needed, the string was adapted to meet the specific A. Karimov et al. International Journal of Serious Games I Volume 11, Issue 4, December 2024 7 requirements of various online databases. While searching, we included papers that were published in English between January 1, 2019, and July 1, 2023. We decided to search papers broadly so as not to exclude any papers that may be subject to inclusion while conducting the review. 2.2 Screening and selecting studies We added the search results to a Google Sheets document, which served as a masterfile; this allowed all authors to communicate and collaborate simultaneously. Two reviewers (AK and MS) screened the abstracts and titles of the first 100 papers and marked in the masterfile whether the paper should be included. This helped calibrate the review process and resolve any ambiguities in the criteria. Once a consistent review process was established, one author (AK) continued the review to maintain efficiency while still following the established criteria. Throughout the process, any uncertainties or ambiguities encountered by the reviewer (AK) were discussed and resolved collaboratively with the other authors to maintain consistency in the review. If the author did not decide on the inclusion status of a paper, they then noted that this paper should be discussed with the other researchers. In this instance, the authors read the full body of the paper and made their decisions accordingly. As the next step, we screened the selected papers from the initial screening process. In the review process, we excluded papers that did not meet our criteria. The exclusion criteria were as follows: • The paper did not review the implementation of serious games at school. We also excluded papers that did not focus on the school level (primary, elementary, and secondary) (e.g., [21]). • The paper did not focus on the implementation of serious games in science and mathematics education. The present study exclusively concentrated on the application of serious games in science and mathematics education. In our research, the term “science” refers to biology, physics, and chemistry subjects, while “mathematics” includes algebra and geometry. Review papers that did not discuss either science or mathematics education that uses serious games were omitted from the analysis (e.g., [47]). • The papers were not review papers. During the search process, we utilized the “review” and “meta-analysis” parameters to identify review papers. However, upon reviewing the papers, we noticed that some did not meet the criteria for being review papers and were subsequently excluded (e.g., [58]). • The context of the paper was not the analysis of the impacts of serious games, and it focused instead on other perspectives of serious games, such as gamification elements or the design framework of serious games. If a paper did not report any results on the effects of using serious games in science or mathematics education, then this paper was excluded (e.g., [49]). • The paper focused on gamification. Gamification adds game elements to nongame contexts to enhance motivation and engagement, whereas serious games are fully fledged games [6]. Thus, we excluded records that investigated gamification and not serious games (e.g., [11]). All exclusion criteria, except the third one, were defined before starting the research. In essence, a paper was considered eligible for inclusion if it conducted a literature review, meaning that it thoroughly examined a topic and went beyond merely presenting related work. Following the final screening process, 16 papers eligible for inclusion in this research were identified. 8 International Journal of Serious Games I Volume 11, Issue 4, December 2024 2.3 Charting the data We utilized inductive open coding using reflexive thematic analysis to categorize the studies. This specific method was chosen because of its flexibility and iterative nature, enabling a dynamic and adaptable approach [12, 13]. We followed five steps: identifying the research questions and objectives, conducting a preliminary search, screening and selecting studies, charting the data, and reporting the results [45, 63]. These steps are described in detail in the following sections (2.1–3). In the initial stage of the research, based on iterative discussions, an initial coding tree was established, and certain codes were predefined to collect background information about each paper, including the publication year, inclusion year of the papers reviewed, review type, number of papers reviewed, and methodology employed. Additionally, three codes were defined based on the research questions, covering the school level, type of game, and the subject in which serious games were implemented. As the authors reviewed the papers, they identified the common positive and negative impacts of serious games, which were subsequently added as codes. For positive impact, codes such as motivation, enjoyment, positive learning outcomes, cognitive skill, behavior change, and engagement were included, whereas negative impact codes included low engagement, less motivation, anxiety, jealousy, and no or minimal change in learning outcomes. Papers reporting these factors were marked with “1,” whereas those not mentioning them received “0.” Moreover, any other positive or negative factors mentioned were recorded in the masterfile as notes for consideration. Finally, after the papers were reviewed, a code regarding the significance of teachers in the application of serious games in science and mathematics education was added. If uncertainties emerged, they were discussed thoroughly by all authors during the entire process. We then conducted the final session, in which we discussed the final set of codes with all authors. 2.4 Assessing methodological quality To evaluate the methodological quality of this scoping umbrella review, we used a systematic appraisal tool, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), which consists of 11 items [55]. These items evaluate a specific aspect of the review methodology. We scored each item in the checklist as “met,” “not met,” “unclear,” or “not applicable.” Two reviewers (AK and MS) independently conducted the appraisal. Moreover, according to AMSTAR, this scoping umbrella review provides a clear research aim and follows a scoping umbrella review methodology using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The AMSTAR checklist can be found in Appendix I. 3. Results This section provides an overview of the analysis results. To begin, we present the general characteristics of the papers reviewed. Subsequently, we explore the main findings concerning the positive and negative impacts of serious games on students’ moods and learning outcomes. We also discuss the role of teachers in the implementation of serious games in science and mathematics education, along with the future research directions proposed by the studies reviewed. A. Karimov et al. International Journal of Serious Games I Volume 11, Issue 4, December 2024 9 Figure 2. Review types and their distribution over the years. 3.1 Study selection and characteristics of the reviews included The initial research identified 535 papers from five databases. After removing duplicates (n = 60) and excluding records (n = 429) after the abstract screening, we obtained 46 records for eligibility assessment (Fig. 1). From these records, 16 were included. Moreover, the number of reviews has been increasing since 2019; meta-analyses (n = 7) and systematic literature reviews (n = 5) were the most common types that focused on the impacts of serious games in science and mathematics education. Table 2 depicts the main characteristics of these papers, such as the number of papers included in the review studies, the inclusion period, the education level in which it was implemented, and the main types of games. While the average number of papers reviewed was around 53, the most common trend was the inclusion of studies that focused on the primary, elementary, and secondary education levels altogether. The common game types were board and quest games. Figure 3. Overview of how many of the 16 reviews reported different positive and negative impacts of using educational games. 3.2 Impacts of serious games on students’ moods and learning outcomes in science and mathematics While most research papers highlight the positive impacts of using serious games in science and mathematics education, a subset of studies also report some negative effects on students’ moods and learning outcomes. In Fig. 3, the primary positive and negative impacts of employing serious games can be observed. Each dot on the radar chart represents the number 10 International Journal of Serious Games I Volume 11, Issue 4, December 2024 of studies that reported this effect in their respective research. On the positive side, serious games were found to be motivating, enjoyable, and effective in increasing learning outcomes (Table 1). They also improved student engagement and cognitive skills and positively influenced behavior. In addition, the use of escape rooms as serious games allowed students to apply their skills and knowledge in complex contexts, although this slightly affected learning outcomes. Another common positive impact was an increase in academic self-confidence, which made the students assured in solving mathematics and science problems. Table 1. Impacts of Serious Games on Students’ Moods and Learning Outcomes Impact Category Papers Motivating [3, 4, 14, 19, 25, 26, 30, 37, 38, 52, 57, 60, 61, 67] Enjoyable [3, 14, 25, 30, 37, 52, 60, 61] Effective in increasing learning outcomes [3, 4, 8, 14, 19, 25, 26, 30, 37, 38, 52, 53, 57, 60, 61, 67] Improved student engagement [3, 14, 19, 26, 30, 52, 57, 60, 61] Enhanced cognitive skills [3, 4, 14, 19, 26, 30, 52, 57, 60, 67] Positive behavior influence [4, 19, 30, 37, 52, 57, 60] Increased academic self-confidence [14, 37, 60] Demotivating [3, 4, 8, 19, 26, 30, 60] Decreased engagement and feelings of failure [3, 60] No significant impacts on learning [4, 8, 14, 19, 30, 60, 61] Anxiety [3, 37, 60] Jealousy [60] Negative emotions, such as nervousness [19] Negative impacts on overall class performance [60] On the other hand, some negative effects of serious games were observed. They were found to demotivate students, decrease engagement, and lead to feelings of failure. In some cases, serious games did not have significant impacts on learning, and they were associated with feelings of anxiety and jealousy. There were instances in which utilizing serious games in the classroom led to negative emotions, such as nervousness, because of unfamiliar settings, and the improvements in emotional intelligence did not persist at a three-month follow-up. Overall, it was noted that if serious games are not thoughtfully designed, implemented, and well integrated with the learning content, they can negatively affect students. Additionally, Talan et al. (2020) reported that serious games may have negative impacts on overall class performance, as they can lead to addiction, occur in noisy environments, and require a long time to set up. Table 2. Review Studies on the Impacts of Serious Games in Science and Mathematics Education Study Inclusion Period Number of Papers Reviewed School Level Types of Games Hussein et al. (2019) [30] 2006–2017 23 elementary role playing, board, simulation, strategy A. Karimov et al. International Journal of Serious Games I Volume 11, Issue 4, December 2024 17 Science, Vol. 6872), Maiga Chang, Wu-Yuin Hwang, Ming-Puu Chen, and Wolfgang Müller (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23456-9_49 [29] CM. Hung, CH. Chiu, YT. Chen, MJ. Su, and HS. Chen. 2009. Effectiveness of game-based learning of a national health e-learning network for nutrition education in elementary school. In 2009 11th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom). IEEE, 184–186. https://doi.org/10.1109/HEALTH.2009.5406187 [30] M. H. Hussein, S. H. Ow, L. S. Cheong, M.-K. Thong, and N. Ale Ebrahim. 2019. Effects of Digital Game-Based Learning on Elementary Science Learning: A Systematic Review. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 62465–62478. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2916324 [31] R. S Jacobs. 2020. Serious games: Play for change. In The video game debate 2. Routledge, 19–40. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429351815 [32] E. J. Kaplan and D. A. Kies. 1995. Teaching styles and learning styles: Which came first? Journal of Instructional Psychology 22, 1 (1995), 29. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429351815 [33] A. Karimov, M. Saarela, and T. Kärkkäinen. 2023. The impact of online educational platform on students’ motivation and grades: the case of Khan Academy in the under-resourced communities. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Mingyu Feng, Tanja Käser, and Partha Talukdar (Eds.). International Educational Data Mining Society, Bengaluru, India, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8115745 [34] A. Karimov, M. Saarela, and T. Kärkkäinen. 2023. Clustering to define interview participants for analyzing student feedback: a case of Legends of Learning. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Mingyu Feng, Tanja Käser, and Partha Talukdar (Eds.). International Educational Data Mining Society, Bengaluru, India, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8115667 [35] M. B. Kinzie and D. RD Joseph. 2008. Gender differences in game activity preferences of middle school children: implications for educational game design. Educational Technology Research and Development 56 (2008), 643–663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9076-z [36] J. Krath, L. Schürmann, and H. FO Von Korflesch. 2021. Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior 125 (2021), 106963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963 [37] C. Lathwesen and N. Belova. 2021. Escape Rooms in STEM Teaching and Learning—Prospective Field or Declining Trend? A Literature Review. Education Sciences 11, 6 (2021), 308. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060308 [38] H. Lei, M. M. Chiu, D. Wang, C. Wang, and T. Xie. 2022. Effects of Game-Based Learning on Students’ Achievement in Science: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research 60, 6 (2022), 1373–1398. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211064543 [39] D. López-Fernández, A. Gordillo, P. P. Alarcón, and E. Tovar. 2021. Comparing Traditional Teaching and Game-Based Learning Using Teacher-Authored Games on Computer Science Education. IEEE Transactions on Education 64, 4 (2021), 367–373. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2021.3057849 [40] A. Hosny Saleh Metwally, L. E. Nacke, M. Chang, Y. Wang, and A. Mohamed Fahmy Yousef. 2021. Revealing the hotspots of educational gamification: An umbrella review. International Journal of Educational Research 109 (2021), 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101832 [41] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339 (2009), b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535 [42] G. Molin. 2017. The role of the teacher in game-based learning: A review and outlook. Serious Games and Edutainment Applications: Volume II (2017), 649–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 51645-5_28 [43] A. Molnar and P. Kostkova. 2013. On effective integration of educational content in serious games: Text vs. game mechanics. In 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. IEEE, 299–303. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2013.94 [44] M. Niemelä, T. Kärkkäinen, S. Äyrämö, M. Ronimus, U. Richardson, and H. Lyytinen. 2020. Game learning analytics for understanding reading skills in transparent writing system. British Journal of Educational Technology 51 (2020), 2376–2390. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12916 18 International Journal of Serious Games I Volume 11, Issue 4, December 2024 [45] M. Núñez-Núñez, P. F. Chien, M. Fawzy, A. Bueno-Cavanillas, and Professor Khan, Khalid S. 2023. Research integrity in clinical trials: an umbrella review. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3URSN [46] C. A. Ongoro and Y. -Y. Fanjiang, "Digital Game-Based Technology for English Language Learning in Preschools and Primary Schools: A Systematic Analysis," in IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 17, pp. 202-228, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2023.3268282 [47] J. Oceja, D. Abián-Cubillo, and M. Torres-Trimallez (2022, September). Games for teaching and learning history: a systematic literature review. In European Conference on Games Based Learning (Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 419-430). https://doi.org/10.34190/ecgbl.16.1.558 [48] J. Haratua Panggabean, M. Sri Defi Siregar, and J. Rajagukguk. 2021. The effect of teams games tournament (TGT) method on outcomes learning and conceptual knowledge in physics science. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1819. IOP Publishing, 012047. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742- 6596/1819/1/012047 [49] N. Pellas, S. Mystakidis, and A. Christopoulos. 2021. A Systematic Literature Review on the User Experience Design for Game-Based Interventions via 3D Virtual Worlds in K-12 Education. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 5, 6 (May 2021), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5060028 [50] L. S. Post, P. Guo, N. Saab, and W. Admiraal. 2019. Effects of remote labs on cognitive, behavioral, and affective learning outcomes in higher education. Computers & Education 140 (2019), 103596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103596 [51] B. Ragni, G. Antonia Toto, M. di Furia, A. Lavanga, and P. Limone. 2023. The use of Digital Game-Based Learning (DGBL) in teachers’ training: a scoping review. In Frontiers in Education, Vol. 8. Frontiers, 1092022. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1092022 [52] T. Ređep and G. Hajdin. 2021. Use of Augmented Reality with Game Elements in Education – Literature Review: Literature Review. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences 45, 2 (2021). https://doi.org/10.31341/jios.45.2.7 [53] M. Riopel, L. Nenciovici, P. Potvin, P. Chastenay, P. Charland, J. Blanchette Sarrasin, and S. Masson. 2019. Impact of serious games on science learning achievement compared with more conventional instruction: an overview and a meta-analysis. Studies in Science Education 55, 2 (2019), 169–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2019.1722420 [54] W. Rorimpandey, F. Maaluas, J. Mangangantung, and H. Suryanto. 2022. The Student Teams Achievement Divisions Learning Model in Its Influence on the Motivation and Science Learning Outcomes of Elementary School Students. Journal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural Research 3, 3 (2022), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.46843/jiecr.v3i3.72 [55] B. J. Shea, J. M. Grimshaw, G. A. Wells, and et al. 2007. Development of AMSTAR: A Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 7 (2007), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 [56] R. Smiderle, L. Marques, J. Artur P. de M. Coelho, S. J. Rigo, and P. A. Jaques. 2019. Studying the Impact of Gamification on Learning and Engagement of Introverted and Extroverted Students. In 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Vol. 2161-377X. 71– 75. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2019.00023 [57] C. Sousa, S. Rye, M. Sousa, PJ. Torres, C. Perim, SA Mansuklal, and F. Ennami. 2023. Playing at the school table: Systematic literature review of board, tabletop, and other analog game-based learning approaches. Frontiers in Psychology 14 (2023), 1160591. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1160591 [58] Y. Sun, S. Pandita, J. Madden, B. Kim, N. G. Holmes, and A. Stevenson Won. 2023. Exploring Interaction, Movement and Video Game Experience in an Educational VR Experience. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 114, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585882 [59] J. Hamari and L. Keronen (2017). Why do people play games? A meta-analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 125-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.006 [60] T. Talan, Y. Doğan, and V. Batdı. 2020. Efficiency of digital and non-digital educational games: A comparative meta-analysis and a meta-thematic analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 52, 4 (2020), 474–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1743798 [61] L. Hayden Taraldsen, F. Olav Haara, M. Skjerdal Lysne, P. Reitan Jensen, and E. S. Jenssen. 2022. A review on use of escape rooms in education – touching the void. Education Inquiry 13, 2 (2022), A. Karimov et al. International Journal of Serious Games I Volume 11, Issue 4, December 2024 19 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2020.1860284 [62] Y. Tazouti, S. Boulaknadel, and Y. Fakhri. 2019. JeuTICE: An arabic serious game to enhance mathematics skills of young children. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) 14, 22 (2019), 252–265. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/217154/ [63] A. C. Tricco, E. Lillie, W. Zarin, K. K. O’Brien, H. Colquhoun, D. Levac, David Moher, M. D. J. Peters, T. Horsley, L. Weeks, S. Hempel, E. A. Akl, C. Chang, J. McGowan, L. Stewart, L. Hartling, A. Aldcroft, M. G. Wilson, C. Garritty, S. Lewin, and S. E. Straus. 2018. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of internal medicine 169, 7 (2018), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 [64] PW. Tzuo, JIOP Ling, CH. Yang, and V. Hsueh-Hua Chen. 2012. Reconceptualizing pedagogical usability of and teachers’ roles in computer game-based learning in school. Educational Research and Reviews 7, 20 (2012), 419–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/ERR11.072 [65] M. Ullah, S. Ul Amin, M. Munsif, U. Safaev, H. Khan, S. Khan, and H. Ullah. 2022. Serious games in science education. A systematic literature review. Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware 4, 3 (2022), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vrih.2022.02.001 [66] N. Vidakis, A. Kristofer Barianos, A. Marios Trampas, S. Papadakis, M. Kalogiannakis, and K. Vassilakis. 2019. Generating Education in-Game Data: The Case of an Ancient Theatre Serious Game.. In CSEDU (1). 36–43. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007810800360043 [67] LH. Wang, B. Chen, GJ. Hwang, and et al. 2022. Effects of digital game-based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: a meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education 9 (2022), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00344-0 [68] SY. Wang, SC. Chang, GJ. Hwang, and PY. Chen. 2018. A microworld-based role-playing game development approach to engaging students in interactive, enjoyable, and effective mathematics learning. Interactive Learning Environments 26, 3 (2018), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1337038 [69] P. Wouters, C. Van Nimwegen, H. Van Oostendorp, and E. D. Van Der Spek. 2013. A metaanalysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of educational psychology 105, 2 (2013), 249. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0031311 [70] A. Xezonaki. 2022. Gamification in preschool science education. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research 2, 2 (2022), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2022.02.001 [71] Z. Yu, M. Gao, and L. Wang. 2021. The effect of educational games on learning outcomes, student motivation, engagement and satisfaction. Journal of Educational Computing Research 59, 3 (2021), 522– 546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120969214 [72] T. Zuo, M. V. Birk, E. D. van der Spek, and J. Hu. 2022. The mediating effect of fantasy on engagement in an AR game for learning. Entertainment Computing 42 (2022), 100480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2022.100480 Appendix A. AMSTAR Evaluation 1. Was an “a priori” design provided? – Met Explanation: The authors clearly stated their research aims and objectives before conducting the scoping umbrella review of previous review papers on the topic of using serious games in science and mathematics education. 2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? – Met Explanation: Two reviewers (AK and MS) conducted the initial screening of abstracts and titles for the first 100 papers, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. The subsequent screening was done by one author (AK). Moreover, after all papers were screened, duplicates were removed from the masterfile to which review papers were added. 20 International Journal of Serious Games I Volume 11, Issue 4, December 2024 3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? – Met Explanation: The review conducted a literature search in multiple databases (Scopus, ERIC, ACM Digital Library, DOAJ, and WoS) using a predefined search string. 4. Was the status of publication (i.e., gray literature) used as an inclusion criterion? – Met Explanation: The review included papers published in English between January 1, 2019, and July 1, 2023, and considered gray literature as well. 5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? – Met Explanation: The review provides information on the number of papers included and excluded during the screening process. The exclusion criteria were clearly defined. 6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? – Met Explanation: The review describes the characteristics of the included studies, such as publication year, review type, number of papers reviewed, and methodology employed. 7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? – Met Explanation: To avoid any publication bias, we included all screened review or metaanalysis studies without depending on their scientific quality. 8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? – Met Explanation: We exclusively included papers that reported the impacts of serious games on students’ moods or learning outcomes. If a paper did not mention any impact, it was excluded from the analysis. 9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of the studies appropriate? – Not applicable Explanation: Quantitative measures of homogeneity were not applicable in this scoping umbrella review; however, by summarizing the similarities and differences among the included studies, we were able to address this issue. 10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? – Met Explanation: We screened all types of publications, ensuring a comprehensive and unbiased representation of the evidence. 11. Was the conflict of interest stated? – Met Explanation: There were no conflicts of interest disclosed by the authors.