What neuroscience tells us about effective game-based learning

Learning and development managers are often asked whether simulations 'really work'. Neuroscience offers a useful, if still early, answer. This article looks at what the research says about effective learning, what it does not yet prove, and how to use it when you choose a learning intervention.

Why neuroscience matters to learning and development teams

Two disciplines underpin all learning: neuroscience and psychology. Neither tells you which programme to buy. Both help you ask better questions of any provider, including us.

The research below comes from a small number of well-known sources. It is a short, practical summary and not a systematic review, and where the evidence is indirect we say so.

Image source: Compound Interest, A Simple Guide to Neurotransmitters

The role of neurotransmitters in learning

There are more than 100 neurotransmitters. The image above, from an article by Andy Brunning [1], identifies eight that play a major role in cognitive functions such as learning, memory, and motivation.

Brunning explains that ‘communication between neurons in the brain is accomplished by the movement of neuro-transmitting chemicals across the gap (synapse) between them’. There are two main types: excitatory neurotransmitters, which cause neurons to fire, and inhibitory neurotransmitters, which prevent neurons from firing.

Pete Jenkins [2] describes how well-designed game mechanics can stimulate several of these chemicals, which in turn support useful cognitive activity:

• Dopamine: Linked to motivation and reward. Novelty and clear feedback can stimulate it
• Serotonin: Contributes to a sense of well-being. Recognition and praise can stimulate it
• Endorphins: Released during effort and excitement. Overcoming challenging tasks can stimulate them
• Oxytocin: Central to bonding, trust, and cooperation. Collaborative tasks can stimulate it

A note of caution on the evidence

Be careful with any provider who claims a simulation 'releases dopamine'. Reviews of game-based learning describe reward as a common ingredient and link it to dopamine, but these links are reasoned from earlier research rather than measured during learning. Brain-imaging work on adults, such as a study of game-based and non-game versions of the same task, found more activity in areas linked to emotion, reward, and attention. Participants found the game version more engaging, but the results on performance were similar.

The practical reading is that engagement is real and worth designing for, but it is not the same as learning. The design of the task still decides what people take away.

The Goldilocks effect: the right level of stress

Daniela Kaufer of the University of California, Berkeley [3] discusses the best level of stimulation for learning. Her summary is that ‘moderate stress is beneficial for learning, whilst mild and extreme stress are detrimental’. Stress and performance follow an inverted U curve, and the stimulation to learn needs a moderate amount of stress, measured by cortisol levels.

Cortisol is one of the three primary stress hormones, along with adrenaline and norepinephrine. Sarah Klein [4] explains how they interact.

Kaufer also notes that what feels like moderate stress to one person may feel low or high to another. For a group of senior leaders, that means a learning intervention needs enough pressure to matter without tipping into threat. This is where psychological safety does real work: people can take risks and make mistakes in a safe space, which keeps stress in the productive zone.

Active learning engages more of the brain

Kaufer's research also covers active learning, where several brain regions work at once. Activities that combine lower-level functions, such as understanding and remembering, with higher-level ones, such as analysis, creativity, and motivation, are particularly effective.

This is the core argument for immersive simulations over lectures: participants make decisions, see the consequences, and discuss them, rather than listening to a description of good practice.

Structured repetition helps learning last

Ben Martynoga [5], a neuroscientist and science writer, explores in the Guardian the benefits of spaced learning. The method teaches content intensively, with timed breaks in between. Repeated stimuli at set intervals signal to neurons that an event is worth remembering.

Martynoga also reinforces Jenkins's view that meaningful challenges lead to better outcomes. In his words, ‘learning results in physical changes to the brain, but dramatic change requires meaningful tasks and considerable effort’.

For lasting learning, this points to programmes with several rounds of decisions and a follow-up, rather than a single event.

A checklist for judging a learning intervention

Research suggests that learning interventions with the following features are most effective:

• Moderate stress
• Uncertainty of outcome
• Repetition and reinforcement
• Active, blended learning
• Novelty, including surprise and excitement
• Teamwork
• Feedback and rewards
• Medium challenge

Use the list when you compare options. Ask any provider how their design delivers each feature, and what evidence they have.

Where to go next

How you apply this depends on the capability you want to build:

• For trust, alignment, and team performance, see our high-performing teams challenge, or the Cohesion and Crew simulations
• For decisions under uncertainty, see our strategic thinking challenge
• For collaboration between rivals, see Consortium
• If your organisation needs something built around its own business and terminology, see our tailor-made simulations

References

1. 'A Simple Guide to Neurotransmitters' by Andy Brunning: compoundchem.com
2. 'Introduction to gamification for customer engagement' by Pete Jenkins: slideshare.net
3. 'Neuroscience and How Students Learn' by Daniela Kaufer: gsi.berkeley.edu
4. 'Adrenaline, Cortisol, Norepinephrine: The Three Major Stress Hormones, Explained' by Sarah Klein: huffingtonpost.com
5. 'Can neuroscience solve the mystery of how students learn?' by Ben Martynoga: theguardian.com