½¿É«µ¼º½

Imagine entering a science classroom where rows of students sit in silence, eyes fixed on their notebooks as the teacher dictates line after line from the prescribed textbook. This is not an unusual picture but a common reality in Pakistan, where science is too often stripped of its investigative spirit and reduced to a script to be memorised for examinations. The implications of this model for student learning are stark. The results of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science (TIMSS) revealed that Pakistani students rank among the lowest globally. This is particularly the case in relation to items requiring the application of knowledge and reasoning through scientific processes.

This disjuncture between the nature of science as an inquiry-driven discipline and the way it is taught in many Pakistani classrooms raises a central question: How might pedagogy be reconfigured to promote deeper engagement, conceptual understanding and scientific reasoning? This blog post explores a potential answer to this question by introducing game-based learning in science education and lessons learned from a game-based intervention.

A project at Aga Khan University (AKU) set out to explore whether game-based learning (GBL) could disrupt these entrenched pedagogical routines. Twenty student-teachers enrolled in the postgraduate education programmes participated in a design-based intervention in which they collaboratively designed 20 . Figure 1 provides an example of a board game on ‘’ developed for elementary grade students. The three lessons that follow represent insights emerging from this inquiry.

Figure 1: Thrust Trail board game

Insight 1: Making abstract concepts tangible vs the risk of oversimplification

One of the greatest challenges in science education is the abstractness of content. Concepts such as electron shells, energy transfer or photosynthesis are often presented in ways that are cognitively inaccessible, requiring memorisation without understanding. Games provided a route to counter this problem. In one design, tokens represented electrons that players moved across orbital shells according to defined rules. In this way games can externalise abstract concepts by creating experiential anchors for understanding (Plass et al., 2015). Yet the very act of simplification introduces risk. In the atomic structure game, electron behaviour was rendered as deterministic moves, potentially obscuring the probabilistic nature of quantum models. As Gee (2003) has cautioned, educational games can become ‘paratexts’ that oversimplify complex domains. The lesson here is double-edged: games can indeed make abstraction tangible, but without critical scaffolding they may replace one distortion (rote memorisation) with another (oversimplification).

‘Games can indeed make abstraction tangible, but without critical scaffolding they may replace one distortion (rote memorisation) with another (oversimplification).’

Insight 2: The balance of play and learning

Games derive their appeal from play, yet their legitimacy in classrooms depends on learning. Striking a balance between these two dimensions is far from straightforward. A nutrition card game initially designed by one group illustrates this tension. Its reliance on humorous penalty cards for ‘junk food’ choices generated enthusiasm, but players became more absorbed in winning than in reasoning about nutrient balance. After revision, the game required players to construct balanced diets strategically, restoring alignment between enjoyment and curricular goals. Squire (2011) also argues that the educational power of games lies in the seamless integration of content into play. When games lean too far towards entertainment, they risk trivialising knowledge; when too constrained by curricular demands, they collapse into little more than worksheets. The lesson is that balancing play and learning is not a design detail but a pedagogical challenge, demanding ongoing negotiation by both teachers and learners.

Insight 3: Different games yield different cognitive outcomes

The cognitive demand of games varied considerably across the project. Some designs targeted knowledge-level recall while others encouraged synthesis and evaluation. For example, a game on ‘nutrition groups’ required learners to label and sort food items, whereas another game on ‘global warming’ involved learners to take decisions that affected environments derogatively. This required them to apply scientific understanding, predict effects and justify their reasoning. This spectrum illustrates that GBL can be designed to align with multiple levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. However, without proper knowledge and training, teachers may design games that are engaging yet cognitively shallow. The lesson learned here is not that GBL automatically develops higher-order thinking, but that such outcomes are contingent on the intentional design of mechanics that demand analysis, synthesis and evaluation.

Conclusion

This project underscores that GBL can do far more than make science enjoyable; it can challenge the very architecture of how science is taught. By making abstractions tangible, balancing play with rigour and eliciting diverse cognitive outcomes, games create possibilities for reimagining pedagogy. Yet these possibilities are fragile, for each gain carries inherent tensions. The critical lesson is therefore not that GBL is a ready-made solution, but that it serves as a ‘disruptive lens’ through which to confront the limits of rote-dominated pedagogy.

References

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 20.

Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283.

Squire, K. (2011). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital age. Teachers College Press.