A pilot study across three universities reveals what happens when future educators and game developers actually try to design and use educational games.
Can games be genuinely useful in education — or are they just a fun distraction? That question sat at the heart of a recent pilot study involving students from three universities: Comenius University in Bratislava (Slovakia), the University of Bielsko-Biala (Poland), and the University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava (Slovakia). The findings offer some honest, nuanced answers.
The study followed two groups. First one pre-service teachers learning to integrate Game-Based Learning (GBL) into their future classrooms. The second one were game design students tasked with creating actual educational games. Both groups completed courses built around hands-on design, playtesting, and reflection. Both also filled in questionnaires before and after, as well as keeping reflective journals throughout.
What changed for future teachers
For teacher students, the results were largely encouraging. At Comenius University in Bratislava, perceptions of GBL became strongly more positive after the course — especially beliefs about whether games can actually improve learning outcomes, which showed the largest jump of all measured items. Students who started out unsure whether games lead to real learning ended up considerably more convinced.
Readiness — meaning confidence to actually use GBL in a classroom — also improved substantially. Most notably, students‘ belief that they could teach others how to apply game-based approaches nearly doubled. This suggests the course moved participants beyond passive acceptance of GBL toward something closer to pedagogical ownership.
At the University of Bielsko-Biala, the data showed a more modest picture: motivation increased slightly, but perceptions and readiness stayed roughly stable. The small sample (seven students) makes firm conclusions difficult, but the qualitative journals tell a richer story. Students moved from seeing games as „fun activities“ to understanding them as complex pedagogical design systems.
What changed for future game developers
For game design students at the University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, the picture was more mixed. Readiness improved — students felt more technically and pedagogically capable after the course. But motivation declined slightly, and perceptions of the long-term value of educational game design became somewhat less idealistic.
This may actually be a sign of success. Students who began with broad enthusiasm about educational games came away with a more grounded, realistic understanding of what creating them actually involves. Designing a game that is both educationally meaningful and fun is genuinely hard, and these students found that out firsthand.
What students said in their own words
Across all three institutions, reflective journals pointed to the same pattern: practical work drove engagement. Students were most motivated when they were making things — cutting card prototypes, testing rules, getting feedback, revising designs. Motivation dipped when sessions felt too lecture-heavy or abstract.
Playtesting emerged as a turning point in nearly every group. Seeing real players — especially children — interact with a game made the design process click in a way that theory alone could not.
The most common requests for improvement were consistent: more worked examples early on, clearer expectations about what the final product should look like, and feedback that felt constructive rather than confusing.
The takeaway
Educational game design is not simple, and these students now know that. But that knowledge, paired with hands-on experience, appears to be exactly what good preparation looks like. The strongest outcome of the pilot was not enthusiasm — it was emerging readiness, grounded in real design work and honest reflection.