How to Implement Game-Based Learning in a Smart Classroom? A Model Based on a Systematic Literature Review and Delphi Method

Abstract

Game-based learning (GBL) can allow learners to acquire and construct knowledge in a fun and focused learning atmosphere. A systematic literature review of 42 papers from 2010 to 2020 in this study showed that the current difficulties in implementing GBL in classrooms could be classified into the following categories: infrastructure, resources, theoretical guidance, teacher’s capabilities and acceptance of GBL. In order to solve the above problems, the study constructs a technology enhanced GBL model, from the four parts of learning objective, learning process, learning evaluation, and smart classroom. In addition, this study adopted the Delphi method, inviting a total of 29 scholars, experts, teachers and school managers to explore how to implement GBL in smart classrooms. Finally, the technology enhanced GBL model was validated and the utilization approaches were provided at the conclusion part.

Full text

fpsyg-12-749837 December 1, 2021 Time: 10:51 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 02 December 2021
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749837
Edited by:
James Ko,
The Education University
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR,
China
Reviewed by:
Kai-Lin Yang,
National Taiwan Normal University,
Taiwan
Stamatios J. Papadakis,
University of Crete, Greece
*Correspondence:
Huiju Yu
yhj@hznu.edu.cn
Junfeng Yang
yjf@hznu.edu.cn
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Educational Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 30 July 2021
Accepted: 03 November 2021
Published: 02 December 2021
Citation:
Pan L, Tlili A, Li J, Jiang F, Shi G,
Yu H and Yang J (2021) How
to Implement Game-Based Learning
in a Smart Classroom? A Model
Based on a Systematic Literature
Review and Delphi Method.
Front. Psychol. 12:749837.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749837
How to Implement Game-Based
Learning in a Smart Classroom?
A Model Based on a Systematic
Literature Review and Delphi Method
Liuxia Pan1, Ahmed Tlili2, Jiaping Li1, Feng Jiang1, Gaojun Shi1, Huiju Yu3*and
Junfeng Yang1*
1Jing Hengyi School of Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China, 2Smart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal
University, Beijing, China, 3School of Marxism, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China
Game-based learning (GBL) can allow learners to acquire and construct knowledge in a
fun and focused learning atmosphere. A systematic literature review of 42 papers from
2010 to 2020 in this study showed that the current difficulties in implementing GBL in
classrooms could be classified into the following categories: infrastructure, resources,
theoretical guidance, teacher’s capabilities and acceptance of GBL. In order to solve
the above problems, the study constructs a technology enhanced GBL model, from
the four parts of learning objective, learning process, learning evaluation, and smart
classroom. In addition, this study adopted the Delphi method, inviting a total of 29
scholars, experts, teachers and school managers to explore how to implement GBL
in smart classrooms. Finally, the technology enhanced GBL model was validated and
the utilization approaches were provided at the conclusion part.
Keywords: games-based learning, smart classroom, teaching model, smart learning environment, education
game
INTRODUCTION
Game-Based Learning (GBL) originated from the game research in the middle of the 1950s, and
from the 1980s scholars started the research and practice of integrating games into instruction.
With the popularization of electronic games and the transformation of education concepts, people
gradually started accepting games as learning tools (Seaborn and Fels, 2015). The published papers
on WoS (Web of Science) tagged by “Game-Based Learning” have demonstrated a rapid increase
and interest in this field.
GBL refers to applying games or related elements, concepts, mechanisms or designs into learning
(Deterding et al., 2011), which is a study mode that integrates educational games into school
teaching and self-regulated learning. As a result, learners can get immersive learning experiences
while mastering knowledge and skills.
GBL has been applied into classroom teaching. However, in terms of practice, there are still
some problems, such as lack of integration between gaming and teaching, a poor balance between
the enjoyment effect, and the education effect. Games are either too attractive but failing to reflect
studying goals, or games can be too educational but failing to trigger interests among learners
(Zhang and Liu, 2007). Some educational games simply provide learning content in a digitalized
way, emphasizing memorizing facts (Villalta et al., 2011). Apart from that, being constrained to
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 749837

fpsyg-12-749837 December 1, 2021 Time: 10:51 # 2
Pan et al. Implement Game-Based Learning in a Smart Classroom
the equipped devices and internet condition of the classroom,
the effect and experience of games is much less satisfying (Shin
and Chung, 2017;Halloran and Minaeva, 2019). Sometimes,
due to the hardware conditions, applications of digital games
have to be forgone. Many scholars and enterprises conducted
related design and research of digital educational games, but
its practical application is hard to meet the requirements of
related studying activities because of the location, equipment, and
internet (Xuqing, 2007;Hou et al., 2012). It is clear that learning
resources, classroom environment and technical configuration
play a vital role in the implementation of GBL (Dickey, 2011;
Sabourin and Lester, 2013). However, lots of problems exist to
carry out GBL in classrooms.
With the advance of educational technology, the research
and practice of smart classroom became popular since 2012
(Yang et al., 2018), which utilized digital technology to support
flexible pedagogies, including GBL. The smart classroom is a
type of technology-enhanced classroom space to facilitate content
presentation, class management, learning resources accessing,
and instructional interaction by utilizing appropriate devices and
software (Huang et al., 2012). With the development of research
and practice on smart education, it is possible to carry out GBL in
smart classrooms to overcome the above-mentioned problems.
In a smart classroom, with GBL, students could engage in
learning by using quality game resources via digital or VR
devices with broadband Internet access, hence enhance the digital
GBL experience. Therefore, this study aims to promote GBL in
classrooms by utilizing smart classroom. Specifically, this study
answers the following two research questions:
(1) What are the problems of implementing GBL in classroom?
(2) How to implement GBL in smart classrooms?
RELATED WORK
Related Concepts of Game-Based
Learning
Games can be divided into many different categories based
on form and content (Amory et al., 1999;Tian et al., 2018).
For conducting GBL research, the following three terms are
always mentioned, namely “Serious game,” “Educational game,”
and “Digital educational game.” There is a certain connection
intersection and difference between these three terms. Clarifying
the meanings and relationships of these three types of games can
determine the scope of the game in this study more clearly. In
this study, GBL is considered as a type of educational activity
based on digital educational games, which can also be understood
as digital game-based learning (DGBL) (Perini et al., 2018;Chen
et al., 2020).
The term “serious game” was first used by Abt to describe
games designed for learning (Apt, 1970). In particular, Abt stated
that serious games must have an educational purpose and not be
played primarily for entertainment. Serious games (Apt, 1970)
can teach players knowledge and skills, and at the same time,
provide professional training and simulation. Serious games have
a proven ability to facilitate the development of skills, abilities and
attitudes due to their focus on problem-solving, to which players
are exposed (The Gamification of Learning and Instruction, n.d.;
Ritterfeld et al., 2009). The content of serious games involves
personnel training, policy discussion, military, education, health,
medical treatment, etc.
Educational games are games explicitly designed for education
(Amory and Seagram, 2003;Ahmad et al., 2015). It includes
both physical and digital games. Educational games in a narrow
sense are electronic games specially developed for educational
purposes (Moreno-Ger et al., 2008;Habgood and Ainsworth,
2011). Educational games in a broad sense not only involve
traditional games (Vos et al., 2011) (such as origami, seven-piece
puzzle, messaging game, etc.), but also include all educational
software, teaching aids, toys with both the characteristics of
education and fun, for example, electronic game tables developed
for educational use, commercial games with educational value,
and some interesting educational software, etc. Educational
games should be developed by considering the objectives and
functions of education.
Digital educational games (also referred sometimes as
educational video games) are educational games which are digital
(Law and Sun, 2012). From the perspective of participating in
games, digital educational games need information technology
equipment and various digital platforms to support the
development of games (Lin and Lin, 2014;Aslan and Balci,
2015;Hawlitschek and Joeckel, 2017). Digital educational games
also need to meet educational features, which can promote
learners’ understanding of the learning content. There are
several types of digital educational games, including adventure
and role-playing games, business games, board games, combat
games, logic games and puzzles, and word games (Alessi
and Trollip, 2001), and digital educational games may be
designed for single player (Miller et al., 2011) and multi-players
(Annetta et al., 2009).
Advantages of Game-Based Learning
GBL is often characterized as more fun, engaging, moving,
and symbiotic (Brangier and Marache-Francisco, 2020;
Osipovskaya and Miakotnikova, 2020;Tundjungsari, 2020).
GBL allows learners to participate in authentic learning
environments, providing a fun, interactive and challenging
learning environment while enabling learners to experience and
apply knowledge (Chen et al., 2018). GBL provides learners with
a contextualized and personalized learning environment (Sykes
and Dubreil, 2019) that meets the individual needs of different
types of learners.
GBL is a type of educational game that improves students’
attitudes and approaches to learning and allows them to
appreciate the learning process itself (Yadav and Oyelere, 2020).
Many studies have shown that digital game-based learning has
a positive impact on learners’ motivation, attitude (Tapingkae
et al., 2020;Taub et al., 2020), engagement and performance
(Eltahir et al., 2021). The use of game elements, such as levels,
points, leaderboards and competitive environment, can not
only promote students’ external motivation, but also positively
affect students’ behavior and increase their internal motivation
in subjects and concepts that are difficult for students to
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 749837

fpsyg-12-749837 December 1, 2021 Time: 10:51 # 3
Pan et al. Implement Game-Based Learning in a Smart Classroom
understand (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021). GBL uses game elements
and aesthetics to enhance students’ motivation and promote
learning (Zimmerling et al., 2019). Appropriate competition and
challenge can motivate learners to learn. Games often have
game mechanics such as competition, scoring, and ranking
that motivate learners to win, gain a sense of accomplishment
and satisfaction, and make learners highly motivated to learn
(Jagušt et al., 2018).
GBL not only has a positive impact on student’s learning,
but also increases their self-efficacy (Wang and Zheng, 2020).
Digital games with interesting storylines, clear objectives and
tasks to be solved make teaching and learning more diverse and
effective in increasing students’ interest and learning efficiency
(Yang and Lu, 2021).
GBL not only engages learners in learning, but also deepens
their understanding of textbook content so they can solve more
complex problems (Perini et al., 2018). Learners can explore
games and find different solutions to problems; therefore, creative
thinking and critical thinking can be developed (Nadolny et al.,
2020). Learners can explore the game and find different problem
solutions; thus, the creative thinking and critical thinking could
be trained (Amory et al., 1999;Nadolny et al., 2020).
Theoretical Foundations for
Game-Based Learning
In this research, 16 relatively high-quality research reviews in
the last 5 years have been searched from the major databases in
this field (Web of Science, EBSCO ERIC (Education Resources
Information Center), IEEE Xplore and SpringerLink). After
reviewing these papers, it is found that their main concerns can
be summarized into the following four aspects: the effectiveness
of GBL (Meredith, 2016;Byun and Joung, 2018;Hussein et al.,
2019;Pellas et al., 2019;Tokac et al., 2019;Chen et al., 2020;
Garcia et al., 2020;Karakoç et al., 2020;Stanˇ
cin et al., 2020), the
future trend of GBL (Giannakas et al., 2018;Gao et al., 2020),
the influencing factors of GBL (Perttula et al., 2017;Shu and Liu,
2019), the theoretical foundations of GBL’s effectiveness and its
practical use (Carenys and Moya, 2016;Bakan and Bakan, 2018;
Ab Jalil et al., 2020).
After synthesizing some literature reviews of predecessors,
this research found that there is relevant theoretical support
for GBL. Some studies suggest that the theories underlying
GBL studies can be classified into three categories: learning
theories, motivational theories, and others (Carenys and
Moya, 2016). The behaviorism, cognitivism, humanism and
constructivism (Amstutz, 1999;Guy, 1999;Merriam, 2001;
Conole et al., 2004). Learning theories are the basis for the
development of propositions in GBL. Each learning theory
has its own representative principles, which provide theoretical
guidance for GBL.
According to behaviorism, players need to know their goals
and achieve these goals through stimuli–reaction process (Wu
et al., 2012). Cognitivists consider learning not to be simply
stimulation and reinforcement, but to involve thinking (Moore
and Fitz, 1993). Cognitivism emphasizes the context-dependent
nature of knowledge where learning is promoted through
scaffolding for task completion. Humanism emphasizes that the
learner-centered approach is the most important component
and players can play games at their own pace and according to
their mood (Kolb, 2014). Constructivism is probably the learning
theory that offers propositions closest to GBL (Carenys and
Moya, 2016). It states that learners must be provided with the
tools that allow them to construct their own body of knowledge
and that instructors should be facilitators who accompany them
in this self-learning process. These statements are strongly linked
to the learner-centered education model and the active learning
proposed by GBL. In the part of model construction, this study
refers to the input-process output model (Garris et al., 2002),
the Play Curricular activity Reflection and Discussion (PCaRD)
GBL pedagogical model (Denham, 2019), and the ARCS model
(Keller, 1987).
Affordance of Smart Classroom
There has been a large amount of work on smart classrooms
spanning over a wide range of research areas including
information communication technology, machine learning,
sensor networks, mobile computing, hardware (Lämsä et al.,
2018). From the educational perspective, smart classrooms
should integrate physical and virtual environments to provide
blended environments for learners.
The physical environment of smart classrooms includes
convenient learning facilities, high-speed Internet access,
comfortable surroundings, flexible space layout, etc. (Paternò
and Wulf, 2017). Convenient learning facilities include various
types of learning terminals, display terminals, and real recording
terminals, which can effectively support the presentation and
sharing of learning content and learning results, and support the
communication and interaction between teachers and learners.
Smart classrooms have high-speed Internet access, equipped with
relatively complete network communication facilities, including
wired communication devices, wireless communication devices,
stable and efficient server and controller. This can ensure a fluent
game process and communication, allowing learners to have a
good gaming experience. This can also allow multiple devices
to operate stably at the same time to meet the requirements
of all learners’ participation. In order to provide learners with
a comfortable classroom, sensing systems are installed in the
classroom, which can control the temperature, light, sound and
air quality (Torrente et al., 2008). The flexible spatial layout
is mainly to provide learners with a more open venue for
activities, rather than confining the space for teaching activities
to closed conventional rooms (Brezovszky et al., 2019). Desks
and chairs with humanized designs are provided so that learners
can change their positions according to their needs, and form
learning groups to facilitate teamwork and group learning
activities. In addition, it also includes other related equipments
that can meet the needs of teaching and learning activities,
such as printing equipment, multimedia editing equipment,
bookcases, shelves, etc.
The virtual environment of smart classrooms, based on cloud
platforms, cloud servers, cloud computing, cloud storage, etc., is
normally equipped with corresponding cloud diagnostic analysis
systems to build a virtual learning space. From the perspective
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 749837

fpsyg-12-749837 December 1, 2021 Time: 10:51 # 4
Pan et al. Implement Game-Based Learning in a Smart Classroom
of learning, the virtual environment of smart classrooms
should provide the functions of learning context-aware,
connecting learner’s community, accessing learning resources,
and personalizing learning pace (Denham, 2019). When
environmental or user parameters are changing, classrooms
with context awareness are able to determine the reactions
based on certain rules or AI algorithms (Fang and Strobel, 2011;
Allsop and Jessel, 2015). Social networking, e-learning spaces,
internet and other technologies in a smart classroom connect
learning participants and bridge the communication between
teachers and learners, allowing to extend the interaction beyond
classrooms (Chen et al., 2020), which promotes the construction
of a learning community. Another important element of a
smart classroom is the abundance of learning resources. The
digital resource platform integrates a large amount of online
data and materials for learners, and manages them by category
to help learners obtain high-quality learning resources more
conveniently (Denham et al., 2016). In addition, learners’
personalized learning is also an essential element (Belova and
Zowada, 2020). The management system in the smart classroom
can provide services and feedback to learners, so that they can
adjust and manage the learning pace as needed, which can
promote their self-regulated learning.
According to the above sorting out of the characteristics
of virtual environment and physical environment in smart
classrooms, the functions of smart classrooms are as follows:
(1) The learning content is flexible and diverse, and can be
presented quickly, clearly and smoothly on multiple screens at
the same time; (2) The comfortable surrounding and space layout
can enhance learning engagement and optimize the learning
experience; (3) Learners and teachers can access and download
rich digital resources through multiple channels at any time; (4)
Learning context-aware is intelligent, which can capture, identify
and record learners’ learning and psychological conditions, and
promote personalized learning; (5) The interaction between
learners and teachers, learners and learners, and human-machine
would be facilitated; (6) Real-time feedback enables teachers to
recognize learners’ learning achievements more effectively, so
as to make more reasonable classroom adjustments, and can
also provide timely feedback for learners based on the results
of the provided assessment; (7) Learning communities will be
connected, to form learning groups or teams, and to promote
collaborative learning; and (8) Learning process will be recorded,
which is a good way for learners to reflect on their learning
process and find out the problems in learning.
METHODOLOGY
The data in this study was collected through two methods:
a comprehensive literature review and an expert survey.
Specifically, as a first step, the findings about GBL problems
were first collected from the literature based on a comprehensive
literature review. Then, to further increase the validity of the
constructed GBL model, it was reviewed and validated by experts
using Delphi method. Each of the methods (literature review and
Delphi) are discussed in the following sections.
Literature Review
This review followed Kitchenham and Charters’ guideline for
performing a systematic literature review (Keele, 2007) and was
carried out through three phases: search strategy design, study
selection, data extraction and data synthesis. Using literature
review, this study identified some of the common teaching and
learning problems in GBL and the affordance of smart classrooms
for solving the problems.
Search Strategy
The search was conducted in databases that are well-known and
well established in the field of education: Web of Science, EBSCO
ERIC, IEEE Xplore and SpringerLink.
The search terms were constructed by Boolean logic as follows:
“game-based learning” OR “gamification learning.”
In a pilot search, it appeared that the search engines
of different databases use different syntax for search strings.
Therefore, the search terms were adjusted to accommodate
different databases.
Study Selection
The selection process consisted of two stages. The first
stage was a preliminary screening, focusing on the following
exclusion criteria.
•Studies which are published before 2010. This was because
the term smart classrooms started to emerge in 2010.
•Studies without an abstract or in forms other than a paper
(such as a poster, presentation, idea paper, etc.).
•Studies that did not elaborate on the research method used
or the obtained findings.
•Studies that are not peer-reviewed.
•Studies which are not written in English.
The search term (“game-based learning” OR “gamification
learning”) in the databases generated 1106 articles (Web
of science:380; EBSCO ERIC:420; IEEE Xplore:252; Springer
Link:54). The screening in previous stage excluded 562 articles
and 544articles remained. After removing duplicate articles, 383
articles basically meet the requirements.
Then, each study was downloaded in the second stage
selection, where several selection criteria (see Table 1) where used
to identify the relevance of each study to the research questions.
The application of inclusion and exclusion criteria eliminated 383
articles, leaving 42 eligible studies (see Figure 1).
TABLE 1 | Selection criteria in the second stage.
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Research involves the background,
conceptual interpretation or significance
of GBL
Research that does not involve the
background, conceptual interpretation
or significance of GBL
Study points out the difficulties of
implementing GBL in classrooms
Study that does not point out the
difficulties of implementing GBL in
classrooms
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 749837

fpsyg-12-749837 December 1, 2021 Time: 10:51 # 5
Pan et al. Implement Game-Based Learning in a Smart Classroom
FIGURE 1 | Review process.
TABLE 2 | Coding sheet.
Database Author(s) Location Title of publication Year of publication Type of article Problems of implementing GBL
in classrooms
Ref. (DOI/URL)
Data Extraction
An Excel form was designed to aid data extraction (Table 2).
Each study was analyzed to derive these data, most of which were
briefly presented in the results section. The analysis primarily
focused on the problems of implementing GBL in classrooms.
Data Analysis
This study adopted inductive content analysis (Elo and Kyngäs,
2008) to identify the problems of implementing GBL in
classrooms in the selected studies. The steps were: selecting the
unit of analysis, making sense of the data and the whole, open
coding, coding sheets, grouping, categorization, abstraction, and
conceptual mapping.
This study arranged two researchers of this paper for the
coding. Two coders performed a pilot analysis on five papers
together in order to reach agreement on the semantics of
“problems of implementing GBL in classrooms.” Despite the
inductive nature of this analysis, the coders used related literature
as a reference (Lee et al., 2013;Tahir and Wang, 2020). Open
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 749837

fpsyg-12-749837 December 1, 2021 Time: 10:51 # 6
Pan et al. Implement Game-Based Learning in a Smart Classroom
coding allowed the possibility of collecting, analyzing and
categorizing other problems.
Expert Survey (Delphi Method)
A Delphi survey with GBL experts was conducted via email.
Before the survey, experts were first contacted to check their
interest in participating in this research. Additionally, the authors
explicitly informed the experts that their participation would be
anonymous. The experts were chosen based on their profiles,
which should include: (1) GBL as their research interest; (2)
good publication record in this area; (3) at least 5 years
teaching experience.
As a result, 21 experts participated in this research (84% of
active response), including scholars engaged in GBL research, and
teachers who use GBL in their teaching. Despite that the experts
were carefully chosen for this study to ensure the reliability of the
findings, we further asked them to rate their familiarity with GBL,
on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 is not familiar and 5 very familiar),
as well as to write down their teaching experience in years. The
experts had an average of 3.8 related to the familiarity with GBL,
which reflect their high level of expertise and appropriateness
for this study. The experts also had an average of 13 years as a
teaching experience.
In the survey, the experts were requested to: (1) score 1–
4 on the 25 elements extracted from the model (1 means not
appropriate, 4 means very appropriate); (2) add GBL elements
deemed necessary; (3) and give corresponding explanations for
the choices they made. After the Delphi, we comprehensively
analyzed the opinions of experts and modified the model.
RESULTS
Problems for Implementing Game-Based
Learning in Classroom (Research
Question 1)
Based on the conducted literature review, the following
problems for applying GBL in classroom were often found.
Table 3 lists the difficulties of implementing GBL in traditional
classroom mentioned in the reviewed papers. These items
are classified from five aspects: infrastructure, resources,
theoretical guidance, teacher’s capabilities and acceptance
of GBL. The classification in Table 3 mainly relies on
induction, but at the same time, it also refers to some
related theoretical literature (Lee et al., 2013;Tahir and Wang,
2020).
It should be noted that the total number of papers in Table 3 is
more than the number of papers obtained by the final screening
mentioned in the research method. This is because some papers
have pointed out more than one type of problem, so they will
be counted twice (or more) in Table 3. To summarize, the
following problems were identified when using GBL in traditional
classrooms.
(1) Digital educational games are more and more diversified,
and the technologies used are more and more advanced.
If teachers want to use these games to carry out GBL,
they need to equip the corresponding technology and tools.
However, many studies have pointed out that some of
the present classroom hardware infrastructure could not
support the needs of GBL, as some games with three-
dimensional graphics interface have higher requirements on
the central processor, memory and display card of the
calculator (Nanayakkara and Whiddett, 2005;Webb et al., 2015).
Traditional classrooms may be difficult to meet the needs of
GBL activities. With the emergence, development and maturity of
various intelligent technologies such as artificial intelligence, big
data analysis, sensing technology, communication technology,
cloud computing and the Internet of Things, GBL is increasingly
used. The teaching practice of integrating new technologies
requires a more complete learning space based on hardware
facilities. It is important to establishing the infrastructure to
enable gaming session (Marklund and Taylor, 2016). Therefore,
one of the foundations of GBL is to have a good teaching
environment, which requires appropriate technical environment
to provide corresponding support.
(2) The lack of GBL resources is another major problem. The
quantity and quality of educational game products need to be
further improved (Sun et al., 2008). GBL needs to be based on
GBL resources, such as high-quality digital games and related
GBL products. However, when teachers adopt the GBL pedagogy,
it is difficult for them to find the quality digital educational games.
Some related enterprises and universities have begun to pay more
attention to the production and development of GBL resources,
and gradually strengthen the production, teaching and research
integration of educational game resources development projects
(Larsen, 2018;Lämsä et al., 2018;Gerodetti and Nixon, 2019;
Romero et al., 2019). It will be a key research direction that
can strengthen the construction of digital educational game
resources, lower the threshold of GBL, and provide schools and
teachers with richer products and more diversified choices. In
addition to good games, the development tools for games are also
what teachers need. But for now, there is still a lack of instructor-
oriented authoring tools for educational games (Torrente et al.,
2008;Paternò and Wulf, 2017;Brezovszky et al., 2019). It is
therefore difficult for teachers to independently develop games
suitable for teaching to implement GBL.
(3) There are still relatively few direct guiding theories that
have a high degree of relevance for GBL. And there are few
pedagogical models available for teachers who are interested in
GBL (Denham, 2019). This is a major difficulty for teachers to
implement GBL in classrooms. Without the guidance of proper
theoretical framework, teachers may feel confused about how to
apply games, what teaching activities to apply games in, how to
arrange game time and learning scaffolds, how to integrate games
into teaching and so on (Fang and Strobel, 2011). Not having a
clear framework on GBL within the curriculum to guide teachers
in the classroom, lack of subject knowledge and not knowing how
to adopt new pedagogical approaches made it difficult for teachers
to use games in teaching, and it also impacted on their view of
teaching with games (Allsop and Jessel, 2015). Many studies have
shown that it is very necessary for teachers to give them relevant
theoretical guidance and instructional support (Denham et al.,
2016;Belova and Zowada, 2020;Chen et al., 2020).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 749837

fpsyg-12-749837 December 1, 2021 Time: 10:51 # 7
Pan et al. Implement Game-Based Learning in a Smart Classroom
TABLE 3 | The difficulties of implementing GBL in classrooms.
Category Description Number of
papers
Ref. (DOI/URL)
Infrastructure The classroom hardware and software infrastructure is
backward
4 10.1007/s10956-015-9571-7
10.3991/ijet.v14i16.10701
10.4018/ijgbl.2015010104
10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.007
The constraints of inadequate and inappropriate technologies 5 10.1007/s11423-017-9552-z
10.1007/s10956-015-9571-7
10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.016
10.1080/1369118X.2013.808365
10.1080/13603116.2014.885592
Resources The quantity and quality of educational games need to be
further improved
10 10.1007/s11423-017-9552-z
10.1016/j.chb.2020.106432
https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.17.1.42
10.1111/bjet.12346
10.1080/09639284.2016.1241951
10.3390/su12208487
10.1080/1369118X.2013.808365
10.1007/s40692-014-0008-8
10.1007/s40692-020-00174-5
10.1007/s10956-013-9436-x
Lack of instructor-oriented authoring tools for educational
games
3 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.011
10.1109/TLT.2011.1
10.1007/978-3-319-60291-2_14
Theoretical guidance Lack of suitable frameworks on GBL within the curriculum 5 10.1111/bjet.12582
10.4018/ijgbl.2015010101
10.1080/09523987.2011.632277
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343228250
10.4018/ijgbl.2015010104
More appropriate instructional support needs to be designed to
integrate games and teaching
5 10.3991/ijet.v8i6.2918
10.1007/s40299-019-00486-w
10.1007/s11528-015-0019-y
10.3390/educsci10090221
10.1109/TLT.2013.2294806
Teacher’s capabilities Teachers’ instructional design ability needs to be improved 5 https://www.jstor.org/stable/26458512
10.1111/jcal.12438
10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.020
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343228250
10.4018/ijgbl.2015010104
Teachers’ technical literacy and organizational capabilities need
to be improved
3 10.3991/ijet.v9i3.3294
10.1007/s10956-015-9571-7
10.4018/ijgbl.2015010104
Teachers need to increase the knowledge of GBL 3 10.1.1.593.1566
10.1080/09585176.2015.1018915
10.4018/ijgbl.2015010104
Acceptance of GBL Teachers’ acceptance of GBL 3 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.010
10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.008
10.1007/s00530-009-0174-0
Learners’ acceptance of GBL 2 10.1177/0735633119887187
10.1111/bjet.12314
Parents’ acceptance of GBL 2 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.012
10.4018/ijgbl.2015010104
(4) Teachers’ information literacy and GBL design capabilities
need to be improved (Becker, 2007). GBL should use some
software and digital games, and therefore teachers need to
enhance their information literacy so that they can be able to
create digital learning environments. In GBL, there are often
practical problems such as insufficient integration of games and
learning content, game activities deviating from learning goals,
low learner participation and so on. A survey conducted in
2013, where 488 teachers were asked questions to figure out
what barriers hindered them from using games in the classroom,
showed that 33% of the teachers found it was difficult to integrate
games into the instruction (Fishman et al., 2014). Teachers should
have good information literacy to successfully blend games with
instruction, and they should also have good background about
educational games to solve the technical problems that may arise
in the process of teaching, and to provide timely and reasonable
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 749837

fpsyg-12-749837 December 1, 2021 Time: 10:51 # 8
Pan et al. Implement Game-Based Learning in a Smart Classroom
guidance for learners. In summary, teachers should strengthen
the integration of GBL and classroom teaching, which means they
need to do better in optimizing instructional design, developing
diversified teaching evaluation methods, supporting learners’
individualized learning and creating teaching situations (Becker,
2007;Denham et al., 2016).
(5) The acceptance of GBL is another realistic issue in the
implementation of GBL. The adoption and the effectiveness of
GBL depend largely on the acceptance by classroom teachers,
as they can be considered the true change agents of schools.
Research surveys have shown that teachers’ perceptions of video
games are complex. On the one hand, teachers are not really
convinced that video games are very useful for enhancing
their job performance. On the other hand, they believe that
video games provide opportunities for learning (Bourgonjon
et al., 2013;Huizenga et al., 2017). From the perspective of
students, they may have a relaxed and entertaining attitude
toward playing games, while ignoring the purpose of learning
(Israel-Fishelson and Hershkovitz, 2020). Their level of interest
in the game and the duration of the operation are also different,
which will affect the participation of students (Ke et al., 2016).
From the perspective of parents, they are more concerned about
whether children can form a better balance between play and
study life (Bourgonjon et al., 2011;Vate-U-Lan, 2015). However,
what we can expect is that with the development of GBL, people’s
acceptance of GBL will gradually increase, and more relevant
groups will have a positive view of it.
The Technology Enhanced Game-Based
Learning Model (Research Question 2)
In the information age, emerging technologies could be used
to help teachers implement GBL better. With the advance
of educational technology, the research and practice of smart
classroom became popular (Yang et al., 2018), to facilitate content
presentation, class management, learning resources accessing,
and instructional interaction by utilizing appropriate devices
and software (Huang et al., 2012). Some studies point out the
characteristics of smart classrooms include both virtual and
physical environments (Rogers, 2002), provide access to data
to facilitate learners’ investigations (Clark et al., 2007), and
produce relevant feedback for learners (Balacheff et al., 2009).
By summarizing and sorting out relevant literature, this study
extracts eight elements of smart classrooms:
In order to solve some of the problems (such as: infrastructure,
resources, and theoretical guidance) in GBL by making good use
of technology, and combined with relevant literature, this study
constructs the technology enhanced GBL model. The design of
GBL process in this model mainly refers to the input-process
output model (Garris et al., 2002). In addition, some ideas from
The Play Curricular Activity Reflection and Discussion (PCaRD)
GBL pedagogical model (Denham, 2019), and the ARCS model
(Keller, 1987) are also used for reference. In order to verify the
validity of the model, this study adopted the Delphi method.
There are 25 key elements that can be extracted from the
model. All the elements of the model were identified based on
a comprehensive literature review. The results of the degree of
acceptance of each element of the model based on the experts’
rating are shown in Table 4.
There are a total of 21 samples in round 1, 25 items in
each questionnaire. The questionnaire’s Cronbach’s alpha is 0.916,
and the Cronbach’s alpha of each item in the questionnaire is
greater than 0.9. This means that the questionnaire’s reliability
is high, and the collected data are reliable. The Mean score
represents the expert’s recognition of the elements. In this study,
items below 3 are deleted. A score of 3 or below indicates that
experts did not have high acceptance level toward the given
element, so “22 Assigning homework” was deleted. Coefficient of
Variation indicates the degree of coordination of expert degree of
acceptance of the elements, the smaller the coefficient, the higher
the degree of coordination of experts. It is generally believed that
CV <0.25 is a good indicator. And this study will delete items
with CV ≥0.25, so “7 Comfortable Environment” and “25 Next
Round Planning” were deleted. In addition, combined with the
qualitative evaluation of experts, some elements are modified.
And the final technology enhanced GBL model in this study is
shown in Figure 2.
The technology enhanced GBL model is mainly composed of
four parts: smart classrooms, GBL objectives, GBL process, and
GBL evaluation. The learning objectives of a class need to be
achieved through the dynamic interaction of teaching/learning
and evaluation. Teachers should prepare for the GBL process by
TABLE 4 | Results of the degree of acceptance about elements of the model (the
technology enhanced GBL model) based on the experts’ rating.
Element Mean SD Coefficient of
variation
1 Connecting learner’s community 3.48 0.81 0.23
2 Intelligence test and data acquisition 3.57 0.68 0.19
3 Real-time feedback 3.71 0.64 0.17
4 Personalizing learning pace 3.57 0.68 0.19
5 Convenient learning facilities 3.52 0.60 0.17
6 High speed Internet access 3.57 0.51 0.14
7 Comfortable surroundings 3.00 1.00 0.33
8 Flexible space layout 3.19 0.75 0.23
9 Multimodal learning analysis 3.71 0.56 0.15
10 Pre-analysis 3.33 0.80 0.24
11 Game selection 3.62 0.74 0.20
12 Context design 3.76 0.44 0.12
13 Activity design 3.95 0.22 0.06
14 Learning contents 3.43 0.75 0.22
15 Features of the Game 3.57 0.81 0.23
16 Gamification of learning contexts 3.76 0.44 0.12
17 Thinking and inspiration 3.43 0.81 0.24
18 Gamification exploration 3.48 0.87 0.24
19 Collaboration and communication 3.62 0.50 0.14
20 Presentation and sharing 3.38 0.67 0.20
21 Learning outcomes 3.38 0.74 0.22
22 Assigning homework 2.95 0.67 0.23
23 Personalized guidance 3.71 0.46 0.12
24 Reflection and improvement 3.43 0.75 0.22
25 Next round planning 3.19 0.81 0.26
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 749837

fpsyg-12-749837 December 1, 2021 Time: 10:51 # 9
Pan et al. Implement Game-Based Learning in a Smart Classroom
FIGURE 2 | The technology enhanced GBL model.
considering the real-time feedback to design the context, choose
games, and guide learning activities. Using different technologies
in the learning environment can accessing digital game resources,
timely test and feedback, displaying learning analytic infographic,
etc. for driving teacher’s instructional design, supporting
learning activities, and enhancing communications between
teachers and students.
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, AND
FUTURE RESEARCH
This study focused on the problems faced by GBL in the
implementation process, and attempts to find ways to deal with
some of these problems from the perspective of using technology.
The study found that there were five common problems in
the implementation of GBL in the classroom: (1) the backward
classroom infrastructure with inadequate and inappropriate
technologies, (2) the lack of quality educational game resources
and instructor-oriented authoring tools, (3) the weak theoretical
guidance of frameworks, curriculum and instructional support,
(4) the incompetence of teacher’s information literacy for GBL,
(5) the stakeholder’s hesitation in adopting GBL.
Based on the experts’ inputs using the Delphi method, the
eight elements of connecting learner’s community, intelligence
test and data acquisition, real-time feedback, personalizing
learning pace, convenient learning facilities, high speed internet
access, comfortable surroundings and flexible space layout of
smart classrooms were identified (Kariippanon et al., 2020;
Midcalf and Boatwright, 2020;Wang et al., 2021, p. 19).
Combined with the elements and the general process of GBL,
the technology enhanced GBL model was constructed. This
model consisted of four parts: GBL objectives, GBL process, GBL
evaluation and smart classrooms. The model explains the process
and main activities of GBL from the three stages of before the
class (Becker, 2007;Huang et al., 2019), in the class (Garris et al.,
2002;Uzelac et al., 2015;Denham et al., 2016;Paudel et al., 2020;
Kim et al., 2021) and after the class (Bayirtepe and Tuzun, 2007;
Suo et al., 2008;Yang and Huang, 2015;Aguilar et al., 2020).
The design and formulation of the model can also respond to
the lack of theoretical guidance to a certain extent.
(1) For the problem of infrastructure, this model provides
a method for constructing suitable environments for GBL.
The environments should have high-speed Internet access,
which makes the game process and communication smooth.
Convenient learning facilities include various types of learning
terminals, display terminals, and real recording terminals, which
can effectively support the presentation and sharing of learning
content and learning results, and support the communication
and interaction between teachers and learners. The flexible spatial
layout is mainly to provide learners with a more open venue for
activities, rather than confining the space for teaching activities
to closed conventional rooms. It is convenient for teachers to
arrange the seats of students according to different game forms
and teaching activities. Desks and chairs with humanized designs
are provided so that learners can change their positions according
to their needs, and form learning groups to facilitate teamwork
and group learning activities.
(2) For the problem of theoretical guidance, this model
provides guidance for teachers’ to implement GBL activities.
Using this model, teachers who do not know how to implement
GBL can first have a clear cognition of GBL, and can
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 749837

fpsyg-12-749837 December 1, 2021 Time: 10:51 # 10
Pan et al. Implement Game-Based Learning in a Smart Classroom
understand the general process of GBL. In addition, teachers
with GBL experience may be able to make some new discoveries
and try to optimize learning analysis, learning activities and
learning evaluation by using various technologies in the learning
environment. This can help them to attract learners’ interest
and promote learners’ effective learning. Therefore, the proposed
model gives teachers some guidance in theory.
However, the model could not handle the other three
problems of resources, teacher’s capability and acceptance to
GBL, which could be targeted in future studies.
The model could be used by researchers, teachers, and school
administrators, or other stakeholders. For researchers, it can
serve as a reference for further research on implementing GBL
in smart classrooms, because in the increasingly intelligent
environment, GBL will develop to a new stage, which requires
researchers to carry out research to keep pace with the times. For
teachers, it provides a guidance on implementing GBL in smart
classrooms, because the model proposed in this paper is mainly
designed according to the teaching process, teachers can refer to
it in different teaching links.
(1) Before the class, teachers can choose the appropriate games
and design teaching activities. Teachers can also design realistic
and interactive game-based learning situations.
(2) In the class, teachers can create immersive GBL experience
that can evoke thinking, promote learning by exploring through
different game activities, as well as develop collaborative
capability and improve interpersonal communication skills.
Encouraging presentation and sharing, learners share their
learning results with others and display their works through
various content presentation methods in the smart classroom,
such as multi-screen display and file transfer between
terminals.
(3) After the class, teachers can monitor the online learning
process to better enhance learning and improve the quality of
teaching. Enhancing personalized guidance, where teachers can
find students who have difficulty in learning by viewing and
analyzing the student data collected by in the learning process.
Teachers provide targeted guidance to learners to solve students’
learning difficulties. Boosting reflection and improvement, where
teachers reflect on the effects of teaching, redesign and improve
the deficiencies. Teachers can get enlightenment from the
reflection, which can become the experience and basis for
teachers to improve their teaching ability.
Although the previous research basis on smart classrooms
and the systematic literature review on GBL provided solid
foundation for the reliability of the proposed model, this
model was still in the stage of theoretical conception and
had not been applied in practice. However, the idea of this
model was presented at an international conference on GBL,
where lots of teachers expressed that they were inspired
and were willing to carry out relevant practice. Besides,
the study also verified the validity of the model through
the Delphi method.
This study mainly constructs a GBL model supported by
smart classrooms from a theoretical perspective, however it must
take further exploration in the educational field to enhance the
validity. It is promising that in the near future, the integration
of the GBL and smart classrooms will be explored in-depth from
both theoretical and practical perspectives.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be
directed to the corresponding author/s.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
LP and JY: conceptualization. JY, JL and FJ: methodology. HY and
JY: supervision. JY, HY, JL, and GS: resources. LP, HY, and JY:
investigation, data curation, writing—original draft preparation.
AT, JY, HY, JL, FJ, and GS: writing—review and editing. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
FUNDING
This research work was supported by 2021 Zhejiang Provincial
Philosophy and Social Planning Project (No: 21GXSZ030YB).
REFERENCES
Ab Jalil, H., Nasharuddin, N. A., Marlisah, E., Nazan, A. I. N. M.,
Ismail, I. A., Ma’rof, A. M., et al. (2020). Systematic Review
of Enjoyment Element in Health-Related Game-Based Learning.
Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 15:40. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v15i21.
17345
Aguilar, J., Altamiranda, J., and Diaz, F. (2020). Specification of a Managing Agent
of Emergent Serious Games for a Smart Classroom. IEEE Lat. Am. Trans. 18,
51–58. doi: 10.1109/TLA.2020.9049461
Ahmad, M., Rahim, L. A., and Arshad, N. I. (2015). An analysis of
educational games design frameworks from software engineering
perspective. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. 14, 123–151. doi: 10.32890/jict2015
.14.8
Alessi, S. M., and Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia For Learning: methods and
Development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Allsop, Y., and Jessel, J. (2015). Teachers’ Experience and Reflections on Game-
Based Learning in the Primary Classroom: views from England and Italy. Int. J.
Game Based Learn. 5, 1–17. doi: 10.4018/ijgbl.2015010101
Amory, A., Naicker, K., Vincent, J., and Adams, C. (1999). The use of computer
games as an educational tool: identification of appropriate game types and game
elements. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 30, 311–321. doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00121
Amory, A., and Seagram, R. (2003). Educational game models: conceptualization
and evaluation ?: the practice of higher education. S. Afr. J. High. Educ. 17,
206–217. doi: 10.10520/EJC36981
Amstutz, D. D. (1999). Adult Learning: moving toward More Inclusive Theories
and Practices. New Dir. Adult Cont. Educ. 82, 19–32. doi: 10.1002/ace.8202
Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., and Cheng, M.-T. (2009). Investigating
the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning
about genetics. Comput. Educ. 53, 74–85. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.020
Apt, C. C. (1970). Serious games: the art and science of games that simulate life in
industry, government and education. Viking: New York.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 749837

fpsyg-12-749837 December 1, 2021 Time: 10:51 # 11
Pan et al. Implement Game-Based Learning in a Smart Classroom
Aslan, S., and Balci, O. (2015). GAMED: digital educational game development
methodology. Simulation 91, 307–319. doi: 10.1177/0037549715572673
Bakan, U., and Bakan, U. (2018). Estudios sobre aprendizaje basado en juegos
en revistas educativas: una revisión sistemática de tendencias recientes.
Actualidades Pedagógicas 1, 119–145. doi: 10.19052/ap.5245
Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A., and Barnes, S. (eds)
(2009). Technology-Enhanced Learning. Netherlands: Springer, doi: 10.1007/
978-1-4020-9827- 7
Bayirtepe, E., and Tuzun, H. (2007). The effects of game-based learning
environments on students’ achievement and self-efficacy in a computer course.
E˘
gitim Fak¨u¸ltesi Dergisi 33, 41–54.
Becker, K. (2007). Digital game-based learning once removed: teaching teachers.
Br. J. Educ. Technol. 38, 478–488. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00711.x
Belova, N., and Zowada, C. (2020). Innovating Higher Education via Game-Based
Learning on Misconceptions. Educ. Sci. 10:221. doi: 10.3390/educsci10090221
Bourgonjon, J., De Grove, F., De Smet, C., Van Looy, J., Soetaert, R., and Valcke,
M. (2013). Acceptance of game-based learning by secondary school teachers.
Comput. Educ. 67, 21–35. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.010
Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., de Wever, B., and Schellens, T. (2011).
Parental acceptance of digital game-based learning. Comput. Educ. 57, 1434–
1444. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.012
Brangier, E., and Marache-Francisco, C. (2020). “Measure of the Lived and
Functional Effects of Gamification: an Experimental Study in a Professional
Context,” in Advances in Ergonomics in Design, eds F. Rebelo and M. M. Soares
(Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing), 242–253. doi: 10.1007/978-3-
030-20227-9_22
Brezovszky, B., McMullen, J., Veermans, K., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M.,
Rodríguez-Aflecht, G., Pongsakdi, N., et al. (2019). Effects of a mathematics
game-based learning environment on primary school students’ adaptive
number knowledge. Comput. Educ. 128, 63–74. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.
09.011
Byun, J., and Joung, E. (2018). Digital game-based learning for K–12 mathematics
education: a meta-analysis. Sch. Sci. Math. 118, 113–126. doi: 10.1111/ssm.
12271
Carenys, J., and Moya, S. (2016). Digital game-based learning in accounting and
business education. Account. Educ. 25, 598–651. doi: 10.1080/09639284.2016.
1241951
Chen, C.-H., Huang, K., and Liu, J.-H. (2020). Inquiry-Enhanced Digital Game-
Based Learning: effects on Secondary Students’ Conceptual Understanding in
Science, Game Performance, and Behavioral Patterns. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 29,
319–330. doi: 10.1007/s40299-019- 00486-w
Chen, C.-H., Liu, J.-H., and Shou, W.-C. (2018). How Competition in a
Game-based Science Learning Environment Influences Students’ Learning
Achievement, Flow Experience, and Learning Behavioral Patterns. J. Educ.
Technol. Soc. 21, 164–176.
Clark, D. B., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Menekse, M., and Erkens, G.
(2007). “Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments to Support Students’
Argumentation,” in Argumentation in Science Education: perspectives from
Classroom-Based Research, eds S. Erduran and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre
(Netherlands: Springer), 217–243. doi: 10.1007/978-1- 4020-6670-2_11
Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., and Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools
for effective learning design. Comput. Educ. 43, 17–33. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.
2003.12.018
Denham, A. R. (2019). Using the PCaRD digital game-based learning model of
instruction in the middle school mathematics classroom: a case study. Br. J.
Educ. Technol. 50, 415–427. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12582
Denham, A. R., Mayben, R., and Boman, T. (2016). Integrating game-based
learning initiative: increasing the usage of game-based learning within K-12
classrooms through professional learning groups. TechTrends 60, 70–76. doi:
10.1007/s11528-015-0019-y
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., and Nacke, L. (2011). “From game design
elements to gamefulness: defining" gamification,” in MindTrek 2011, eds A.
Lugmayr, H. Franssila, C. Safran, and I. Hammouda (New York: ACM), 9–15.
doi: 10.1145/2181037.2181040
Dickey, M. D. (2011). Murder on Grimm Isle: the impact of game narrative design
in an educational game−based learning environment. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 42,
456–469. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01032.x
Elo, S., and Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv.
Nurs. 62, 107–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Eltahir, M. E., Alsalhi, N. R., Al-Qatawneh, S., AlQudah, H. A., and Jaradat, M.
(2021). The impact of game-based learning (GBL) on students’ motivation,
engagement and academic performance on an Arabic language grammar course
in higher education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 26, 3251–3278. doi: 10.1007/s10639-
020-10396-w
Fang, J., and Strobel, J. (2011). How ID models help with game-based learning: an
examination of the gentry model in a participatory design project. Educ. Media
Int. 48, 287–306. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2011.632277
Fishman, B., Riconscente, M., Snider, R., Tsai, T., and Plass, J. (2014). Empowering
educators: supporting student progress in the classroom with digital games. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Gao, F., Li, L., and Sun, Y. (2020). A systematic review of mobile game-based
learning in STEM education. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 68, 1791–1827. doi:
10.1007/s11423-020-09787-0
Garcia, I., Pacheco, C., Méndez, F., and Calvo−Manzano, J. A. (2020). The effects
of game−based learning in the acquisition of ‘soft skills’ on undergraduate
software engineering courses: a systematic literature review. Comput. Appl. Eng.
Educ. 28, 1327–1354. doi: 10.1002/cae.22304
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., and Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, Motivation, and Learning:
a Research and Practice Model. Simul. Gaming 33, 441–467. doi: 10.1177/
1046878102238607
Gerodetti, N., and Nixon, D. (2019). “Exploration: using Play to Design Play—
Gamification and Student Involvement in the Production of Games-Based
Learning Resources for Research Methods Teaching,” in The Power of Play in
Higher Education, eds A. James and C. Nerantzi (Berlin: Springer), 283–290.
doi: 10.1007/978-3- 319-95780-7_36
Giannakas, F., Kambourakis, G., Papasalouros, A., and Gritzalis, S. (2018). A
critical review of 13 years of mobile game-based learning. Educ. Technol. Res.
Dev. 66, 341–384. doi: 10.1007/s11423-017- 9552-z
Guy, T. C. (1999). Providing culturally relevant adult education: a challenge for the
twenty-first century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Habgood, M. J., and Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn
effectively: exploring the value of intrinsic integration in educational
games. J. Learn. Sci. 20, 169–206. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2010.
508029
Halloran, J., and Minaeva, A. (2019). Touch and play? Investigating the value of
touchscreens for gamer experience. The Effects of Input Modality and Story-
Based Knowledge on Users’. Game Exp. 32:100312. doi: 10.1016/j.entcom.2019.
100312
Hawlitschek, A., and Joeckel, S. (2017). Increasing the effectiveness of digital
educational games: the effects of a learning instruction on students’ learning,
motivation and cognitive load. Comput. Hum. Behav. 72, 79–86. doi: 10.1016/
j.chb.2017.01.040
Hou, J., Nam, Y., Peng, W., and Lee, K. M. (2012). Effects of screen size, viewing
angle, and players’ immersion tendencies on game experience. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 28, 617–623. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.007
Huang, L.-S., Su, J.-Y., and Pao, T.-L. (2019). A Context Aware Smart Classroom
Architecture for Smart Campuses. Appl. Sci. 9:1837. doi: 10.3390/app9091837
Huang, R., Hu, Y., Yang, J., and Xiao, G. (2012). The concept and characters of
smart classroom. Open Educ. Res. 18, 22–27.
Huizenga, J. C., ten Dam, G. T. M., Voogt, J. M., and Admiraal, W. F.
(2017). Teacher perceptions of the value of game-based learning in secondary
education. Comput. Educ. 110, 105–115. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.008
Hussein, M. H., Ow, S. H., Cheong, L. S., Thong, M., and Ebrahim, N. A. (2019).
Effects of Digital Game-Based Learning on Elementary Science Learning: a
Systematic Review. IEEE Access 7, 62465–62478. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.
2916324
Israel-Fishelson, R., and Hershkovitz, A. (2020). Persistence in a Game-Based
Learning Environment: the Case of Elementary School Students Learning
Computational Thinking. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 58, 891–918. doi: 10.1177/
0735633119887187
Jagušt, T., Botièki, I., and So, H.-J. (2018). Examining competitive,
collaborative and adaptive gamification in young learners’ math
learning. Comput. Educ. 125, 444–457. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.
06.022
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 749837

fpsyg-12-749837 December 1, 2021 Time: 10:51 # 12
Pan et al. Implement Game-Based Learning in a Smart Classroom
Kalogiannakis, M., Papadakis, S., and Zourmpakis, A.-I. (2021). Gamification in
Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature. Educ. Sci. 11:22.
doi: 10.3390/educsci11010022
Karakoç, B., Eryılmaz, K., Özpolat, E. T., and Yıldırım, I. (2020). The effect of game-
based learning on student achievement: a meta-analysis study. Technol. Knowl.
Learn. 1, 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s10758-020- 09471-5
Kariippanon, K. E., Cliff, D. P., Okely, A. D., and Parrish, A. M. (2020). The
‘why’and ‘how’of flexible learning spaces: a complex adaptive systems analysis.
J. Educ. Change 21, 569–593. doi: 10.1007/s10833-019- 09364-0
Ke, F., Xie, K., and Xie, Y. (2016). Game−based learning engagement: a
theory−and data−driven exploration. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 47, 1183–1201.
doi: 10.1111/bjet.12314
Keele, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software
engineering. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Citeseer.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional
design. J. Instr. Dev. 10, 2–10. doi: 10.1007/BF02905780
Kim, B. J., Ke, F., Moon, J., and West, L. (2021). “Designing Dynamic Learning
Supports for Game and Simulation-Based Learning in STEM Education,” in
Game-based Learning Across the Disciplines. Advances in Game-Based Learning,
eds C. Aprea and D. Ifenthaler (Cham: Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-3- 030-
75142-5_8
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and
development. Upper Saddle River: FT press.
Lämsä, J., Hämäläinen, R., Aro, M., Koskimaa, R., and Äyrämö, S. (2018). Games
for enhancing basic reading and maths skills: a systematic review of educational
game design in supporting learning by people with learning disabilities. Br. J.
Educ. Technol. 49, 596–607. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12639
Larsen, L. J. (2018). Juicing the game design process: towards a content centric
framework for understanding and teaching game design in higher education.
Educ. Media Int. 55, 231–254. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2018.1512445
Law, E. L.-C., and Sun, X. (2012). Evaluating user experience of adaptive digital
educational games with Activity Theory. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 70, 478–
497. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.01.007
Lee, Y., Chu, H., and Shen, C. (2013). A SURVEY RESEARCH ON THE USAGE
AND THE INFLUENCEING FACTORS OF GAME-BASED LEARNING
AMONG ELEMENTARY TEACHERS IN TAIWAN. Res. Pract. Technol.
Enhanc. Learn. 8, 205–223.
Lin, H.-W., and Lin, Y.-L. (2014). Digital educational game value hierarchy from a
learners’ perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 30, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.
07.034
Marklund, B. B., and Taylor, A.-S. A. (2016). Educational Games in Practice: the
challenges involved in conducting a game-based curriculum. Elect. J. Elearn.
14, 122–135.
Meredith, T. R. (2016). Game-Based Learning in Professional Development for
Practicing Educators: a Review of the Literature. TechTrends 60, 496–502. doi:
10.1007/s11528-016-0107-7
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: pillars of adult
learning theory. New Dir. Adult Cont. Educ. 2001:3. doi: 10.1002/ace.3
Midcalf, L., and Boatwright, P. (2020). Teacher and Parent Perspectives of the
Online Learning Environment Due to COVID-19. Delta Kappa Gamma Bull.
87:128.
Miller, L. M., Chang, C.-I., Wang, S., Beier, M. E., and Klisch, Y. (2011). Learning
and motivational impacts of a multimedia science game. Comput. Educ. 57,
1425–1433. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.016
Moore, P., and Fitz, C. (1993). Gestalt theory and instructional design. J. Tech. Writ.
Commun. 23, 137–157. doi: 10.2190/G748-BY68- L83T-X02J
Moreno-Ger, P., Burgos, D., Martínez-Ortiz, I., Sierra, J. L., and Fernández-
Manjón, B. (2008). Educational game design for online education.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 2530–2540. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.
03.012
Nadolny, L., Valai, A., Cherrez, N. J., Elrick, D., Lovett, A., and Nowatzke, M.
(2020). Examining the characteristics of game-based learning: a content analysis
and design framework. Comput. Educ. 156:103936. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.
2020.103936
Nanayakkara, C., and Whiddett, D. (2005). “A model of user acceptance of
e-learning technologies: a case study of a Polytechnic in New Zealand,” in
Information systems technology and its applications, ISTA’ 2005, eds R. Kaschek,
H. C. Mayr, and S. Liddle (Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V), 180–189.
Osipovskaya, E., and Miakotnikova, S. (2020). “Using Gamification in Teaching
Public Relations Students,” in The Challenges of the Digital Transformation in
Education, eds M. E. Auer and T. Tsiatsos (Heidelberg: Springer International
Publishing), 685–696. doi: 10.1007/978-3- 030-11932-4_64
Paternò, F., and Wulf, V. (2017). New perspectives in end-user development. Cham:
Springer.
Paudel, P., Kim, S., Park, S., and Choi, K.-H. (2020). A Context-Aware IoT and
Deep-Learning-Based Smart Classroom for Controlling Demand and Supply of
Power Load. Electronics 9:1039. doi: 10.3390/electronics9061039
Pellas, N., Fotaris, P., Kazanidis, I., and Wells, D. (2019). Augmenting the learning
experience in primary and secondary school education: a systematic review
of recent trends in augmented reality game-based learning. Virtual Real. 23,
329–346. doi: 10.1007/s10055-018- 0347-2
Perini, S., Luglietti, R., Margoudi, M., Oliveira, M., and Taisch, M. (2018).
Learning and motivational effects of digital game-based learning (DGBL) for
manufacturing education –The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) game. Comput.
Ind. 102, 40–49. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2018.08.005
Perttula, A., Kiili, K., Lindstedt, A., and Tuomi, P. (2017). Flow experience in game
based learning—A systematic literature review. Int. J. Serious Games 4, 57–72.
doi: 10.17083/ijsg.v4i1.151
Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., and Vorderer, P. (2009). Serious games: mechanisms and
effects. Milton Park: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203891650
Rogers, P. L. (ed.) (2002). Designing instruction for technology-enhanced learning.
Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. doi: 10.4018/978-1-93070-828-0
Romero, M., Arnab, S., De Smet, C., Mohamad, F., Minoi, J.-L., and Morini, L.
(2019). Assessment of Co-Creativity in the Process of Game Design. Elect. J.
Elearn. 17, 199–206. doi: 10.34190/JEL.17.3.003
Sabourin, J. L., and Lester, J. C. (2013). Affect and engagement in Game-Based
Learning environments. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 5, 45–56. doi: 10.1109/
T-AFFC.2013.27
Seaborn, K., and Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: a survey. Int.
J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 74, 14–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006
Shin, D.-H., and Chung, K. (2017). The effects of input modality and story-based
knowledge on users’ game experience. Comput. Hum. Behav. 68, 180–189. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.030
Shu, L., and Liu, M. (2019). Student Engagement in Game-Based Learning: a
Literature Review from 2008 to 2018. J. Educ. Multimed. Hypermedia 28,
193–215.
Stanˇ
cin, K., Hoi´
c-Boži´
c, N., and Skoˇ
ci´
c Mihi´
c, S. (2020). Using Digital Game-
Based Learning for Students with Intellectual Disabilities—A Systematic
Literature Review. Inform. Educ. 19, 323–341. doi: 10.15388/infedu.2
020.15
Sun, P.-C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y.-Y., and Yeh, D. (2008). What drives
a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors
influencing learner satisfaction. Comput. Educ. 50, 1183–1202. doi: 10.1016/
j.compedu.2006.11.007
Suo, Y., Miyata, N., Morikawa, H., Ishida, T., and Shi, Y. (2008). Open smart
classroom: extensible and scalable learning system in smart space using web
service technology. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 21, 814–828. doi: 10.1109/
TKDE.2008.117
Sykes, J. M., and Dubreil, S. (2019). “Pragmatics Learning in Digital Games and
Virtual Environments,” in In The Routledge Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition and Pragmatics, ed. N. Taguchi (Milton Park: Routledge). doi: 10.
4324/9781351164085-25
Tahir, R., and Wang, A. I. (2020). Codifying Game-Based Learning: development
and Application of LEAGUÊ Framework for Learning Games. Elect. J. Elearn.
18, 69–87. doi: 10.34190/EJEL.20.18.1.006
Tapingkae, P., Panjaburee, P., Hwang, G.-J., and Srisawasdi, N. (2020). Effects of
a formative assessment-based contextual gaming approach on students’ digital
citizenship behaviours, learning motivations, and perceptions. Comput. Educ.
159:103998. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103998
Taub, M., Sawyer, R., Smith, A., Rowe, J., Azevedo, R., and Lester, J.
(2020). The agency effect: the impact of student agency on learning,
emotions, and problem-solving behaviors in a game-based learning
environment. Comput. Educ. 147:103781. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.1
03781
The Gamification of Learning and Instruction (n.d.). The Gamification of Learning
and Instruction. Available Online at: https://sc.panda321.com/extdomains/
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 749837

fpsyg-12-749837 December 1, 2021 Time: 10:51 # 13
Pan et al. Implement Game-Based Learning in a Smart Classroom
books.google.com/books/about/The_Gamification_of_Learning_and_Instruc.
html?hl=zh-CN&id=M2Rb9ZtFxccC (accessed October 10, 2021).
Tian, N., Dong, Y., and Wei, Z. (2018). Impact Analysis of Different Types
of Online Games Webcast on the Originality of Game Graphics. Available
Online at: https://webofproceedings.org/proceedings_series/article/artId/3463.
html (accessed October 9, 2021).
Tokac, U., Novak, E., and Thompson, C. G. (2019). Effects of game−based learning
on students’ mathematics achievement: a meta−analysis. J. Comput. Assist.
Learn. 35, 407–420. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12347
Torrente, J., Moreno-Ger, P., Fernández-Manjón, B., and Sierra, J. L. (2008).
“Instructor-oriented authoring tools for educational videogames,” in 8th IEEE
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2008),
(Santander: IEEE), 516–518.
Tundjungsari, V. (2020). “Mobile Learning Design Using Gamification for
Teaching and Learning in Algorithms and Programming Language,” in
The Challenges of the Digital Transformation in Education, eds M. E.
Auer and T. Tsiatsos (Berlin: Springer), 650–661. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030
-11932-4_61
Uzelac, A., Gligoric, N., and Krco, S. (2015). A comprehensive study of parameters
in physical environment that impact students’ focus during lecture using
Internet of Things. Comput. Hum. Behav. 53, 427–434.
Vate-U-Lan, P. (2015). Transforming Classrooms through Game-Based Learning:
a Feasibility Study in a Developing Country. Int. J. Game Based Learn. 5, 46–57.
doi: 10.4018/ijgbl.2015010104
Villalta, M., Gajardo, I., Nussbaum, M., Andreu, J. J., Echeverría, A., and Plass, J. L.
(2011). Design guidelines for classroom multiplayer presential games (CMPG).
Comput. Educ. 57, 2039–2053.
Vos, N., Van Der Meijden, H., and Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of constructing
versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning
strategy use. Comput. Educ. 56, 127–137.
Wang, M., and Zheng, X. (2020). Using Game-Based Learning to Support Learning
Science: a Study with Middle School Students. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 30, 167–176.
doi: 10.1007/s40299-020- 00523-z
Wang, S., Shi, G., Lu, M., Lin, R., and Yang, J. (2021). Determinants of Active
Online Learning in the Smart Learning Environment: an Empirical Study with
PLS-SEM. Sustainability 13:9923.
Webb, A. W., Bunch, J. C., and Wallace, M. F. G. (2015). Agriscience Teachers’
Implementation of Digital Game-based Learning in an Introductory Animal
Science Course. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 24, 888–897. doi: 10.1007/s10956-015-
9571-7
Wu, W., Hsiao, H., Wu, P., Lin, C., and Huang, S. (2012). Investigating
the learning−theory foundations of game−based learning: a meta−analysis.
J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 28, 265–279.
Xuqing, W. (2007). Second Life and Digital Game-based Learning Environment
[J]. Distance Educ. J. 4, 76–78.
Yadav, A. K., and Oyelere, S. S. (2020). Contextualized mobile game-based learning
application for computing education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 26, 2539–2562. doi:
10.1007/s10639-020-10373-3
Yang, J., and Huang, R. (2015). Development and validation of a scale for evaluating
technology-rich classroom environment. J. Comput. Educ. 2, 145–162.
Yang, J., Pan, H., Zhou, W., and Huang, R. (2018). Evaluation of smart classroom
from the perspective of infusing technology into pedagogy. Smart Learn.
Environ. 5:20. doi: 10.1186/s40561-018- 0070-1
Yang, K.-H., and Lu, B.-C. (2021). Towards the successful game-based learning:
detection and feedback to misconceptions is the key. Comput. Educ. 160:104033.
doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104033
Zhang, W., and Liu, J. (2007). The Examined Thought about Essence and Value of
Edugame—Looking at Combination of Education and Game From Game Angle
[J]. Open Educ. Res. 5, 64–68.
Zimmerling, E., Höllig, C. E., Sandner, P. G., and Welpe, I. M. (2019).
Exploring the influence of common game elements on ideation output
and motivation. J. Bus. Res. 94, 302–312. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.
02.030
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Copyright © 2021 Pan, Tlili, Li, Jiang, Shi, Yu and Yang. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided
the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academicpractice. No
use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with theseterms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 December 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 749837