Learning by playing: mini-games as a corporate training tool

The word "game" tends to make training people uneasy. It sounds like the opposite of serious, like something that lightens an important subject until little of it is left, and the worry is fair enough, because nobody wants a course on safety or a company procedure to turn into a pastime. There is a distinction that often gets missed, though, between using a game to dress up content and using it as the vehicle for the learning itself. In the second case mini-games become a serious tool, and the research behind them is sturdier than people assume.

The difference between game-based learning and gamification

The two terms get used almost interchangeably, and yet they mean different things. With gamification you add game elements, such as points, levels and leaderboards, to content that stays what it was before, a reading, a video, a quiz. With game-based learning the learning happens inside the game, because the act of playing is what calls for the thing you are meant to learn. A set of flashcards to guess, a crossword built on the key terms of a subject, a word game in the style of the ones that have caught on lately: in all of these, to move forward you have to call a piece of knowledge back to mind, and that is where the difference sits.

So the point is to choose the game as the form in which content actually gets practised, which is something other than simply making a lesson nicer, a topic we have covered elsewhere when noting that badges and leaderboards on their own are not enough <!-- internal link: EN "narrative gamification" article -->. Seen this way, a mini-game is study in its own right, in a form people are willing to take on.

What the research says

The idea that you can learn through play has been tested in a systematic way. The largest meta-analysis on the subject, by Douglas Clark, Emily Tanner-Smith and Stephen Killingsworth in the Review of Educational Research in 2016, compared situations with and without digital games and found that games improved learning to a meaningful degree, with an average effect of around a third of a standard deviation. A few years earlier, a meta-analysis on serious games by Wouters and colleagues in the Journal of Educational Psychology had reached the same conclusions, with gains in learning and, more clearly still, in how well people remembered what they had studied over time.

The effects, it should be said, are real but moderate, and the research is clear about when games pay off most. They work better when they sit alongside other forms of instruction rather than replacing them, when they are repeated across several sessions, and above all when they stay simple. This is the most useful finding for anyone designing training, because both Wouters and Clark observed that plain, schematic games often beat the ones loaded with realistic graphics or an elaborate storyline. It means you do not need an expensive video game to get a result, since a short mini-game well aimed at the content is exactly the format the evidence rewards.

Why they work: playing means retrieving

There is a precise name in the psychology of memory for why a well-made mini-game teaches. Guessing a flashcard, finishing a crossword or searching for the right word are all forms of active retrieval, the act of pulling a piece of information out of memory instead of only rereading it. The studies by Roediger and Karpicke on the testing effect showed that this effort of recall is what fixes knowledge for the long term, far more than passive rereading. A game that asks you to retrieve what you have learned therefore puts memory to work in the way research has found most effective, and it does so while the person is having fun.

Then there is repetition over time. Flashcards are the classic tool of distributed practice, so much so that the well-known Leitner system, which brings back the cards you got wrong more often and the ones you know less often, anticipated by decades what we now call spaced repetition. A mini-game that comes back every day turns that distribution into an almost painless habit, and makes review, usually the most neglected part of any training path, into something people choose to do.

How Evolve uses mini-games

Evolve, AWorld's Learning Experience Platform, places mini-games among its content formats, alongside short readings and quizzes, inside its learning paths. Flashcards, crosswords and word games work as moments where the content of the path is tested through play, setting in motion the active retrieval that consolidates memory.

The game of the day plays a part of its own, a short daily challenge that gives people a reason to come back every day and that, repeated over time, builds exactly the distributed review research points to as decisive for not forgetting. Recognition mechanics, such as the experience points awarded on completion, keep motivation up and leave content in the central role. The way the play moments are spread along the path, finally, follows the logic of microlearning <!-- internal link: EN microlearning article -->, which breaks learning into short units you can tackle a little at a time.

The game in service of the goal

One clarification keeps the tool from being mistaken for a magic formula. The same research that proves games effective also shows that everything depends on their being aligned with a clear learning goal, and a mini-game built without a close tie to what it is meant to teach stays a pastime, pleasant perhaps but of little use. What sets apart a game that teaches is the care with which its rules are woven into the things to be mastered, more than its visual styling. When that weaving is well done, the game stops being the light moment of the course and becomes the concrete way the course teaches.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between game-based learning and gamification? With gamification you add game elements, such as points and leaderboards, to content that stays unchanged. With game-based learning the game itself carries the learning, because playing requires you to recall and apply what you are meant to learn. A mini-game such as a flashcard or a crossword belongs to this second category.

Do mini-games really teach, or are they a distraction? Research shows positive, if moderate, effects on learning and especially on how well people remember over time, as long as the game is tied to a clear learning goal. The merit lies in active retrieval, which fixes knowledge more firmly than simple rereading.

Do you need complex, expensive games to get results? No. Meta-analyses indicate that simple, schematic games tend to work better than ones with realistic graphics or elaborate storylines. A short mini-game focused on the content is often the most effective choice, and the most sustainable one too.

How does Evolve use mini-games? Evolve builds flashcards, crosswords and word games into its learning paths, alongside readings and quizzes, and offers a game of the day that encourages daily review. In this way mini-games become regular occasions for active retrieval, spread over time.

When the game is a serious matter

Being wary of games in training is understandable, but mistaking game-based learning for frivolity means missing opportunities. A well-designed mini-game makes content practicable, repeatable and easier to remember, because it asks people for exactly what memory needs in order to hold on to something, which is to retrieve it actively and after some time has passed. The form of the game, here, is one of the most effective routes research knows of, and it deserves to be taken as seriously as the content it carries.

If you want to see how mini-games can make your training more memorable, discover Evolve and talk to our team.

Sources

• Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital Games, Design, and Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79-122.
• Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A Meta-Analysis of the Cognitive and Motivational Effects of Serious Games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249-265.
• Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255.
• Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed Practice in Verbal Recall Tasks: A Review and Quantitative Synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354-380.
• Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The Gamification of Learning: a Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 77-112.