Game-Based and Gamified Robotics Education: A Comparative Systematic Review and Design Guidelines

TL;DR

This PRISMA-aligned systematic review compares game-based learning (GBL) and gamification in robotics education across 95 studies (2014–2025), revealing stable approach–context coupling, a heavy emphasis on introductory programming, and short study horizons reliant on self-report. It shows no significant difference in learning gains or motivation between GBL and gamification, but finds distinct pedagogical patterns: GBL more often employs constructivist or experiential designs in informal settings, while gamification aligns with project-based strategies in formal classrooms. The authors provide a structured design space and a three-stage progression model to guide designers, plus eight future research directions addressing accessibility, immersive technologies, and robust evaluation. Overall, the work reframes GBL and gamification as complementary, context-sensitive tools and offers practical guidelines to create inclusive, scalable robotics learning experiences with rigorous assessment of durable outcomes.

Abstract

Robotics education fosters computational thinking, creativity, and problem-solving, but remains challenging due to technical complexity. Game-based learning (GBL) and gamification offer engagement benefits, yet their comparative impact remains unclear. We present the first PRISMA-aligned systematic review and comparative synthesis of GBL and gamification in robotics education, analyzing 95 studies from 12,485 records across four databases (2014-2025). We coded each study's approach, learning context, skill level, modality, pedagogy, and outcomes (k = .918). Three patterns emerged: (1) approach-context-pedagogy coupling (GBL more prevalent in informal settings, while gamification dominated formal classrooms [p < .001] and favored project-based learning [p = .009]); (2) emphasis on introductory programming and modular kits, with limited adoption of advanced software (~17%), advanced hardware (~5%), or immersive technologies (~22%); and (3) short study horizons, relying on self-report. We propose eight research directions and a design space outlining best practices and pitfalls, offering actionable guidance for robotics education.

Figures (14)

• Figure 1: A concept map illustrating the relationships among key concepts used for the literature review. Solid lines denote direct relationships, arrows denote hierarchy, and dashed lines denote overarching relationships.
• Figure 2: Flowchart of the PRISMA-based selection process.
• Figure 3: Distribution of the publication years of the reviewed articles.
• Figure 4: Learning contexts utilized across different approach types in the reviewed studies (% of studies).
• Figure 5: Left: approach types utilized across the reviewed studies (% of studies). Right: Learning contexts across the reviewed studies (% of studies).