Summary

This case study explores the experiences of postgraduate science education students who co-designed non-digital educational games through a structured, iterative design process in a higher education institution in Pakistan. By developing 40 curriculum-aligned board and card games using low-cost materials, participants addressed the challenge of making abstract science concepts more accessible. The process fostered professional agency, collaboration, and deeper pedagogical reasoning, while also revealing tensions in balancing engagement with conceptual rigour. The case demonstrates that involving future teachers in co-creation generates not only classroom resources but also a sustainable habit of practice, positioning teachers as adaptive designers rather than passive implementers. 

The Case: State of Science Education in Pakistan

Science education in Pakistan faces challenges as studies have consistently shown that student performance in science is below global standards (ASER, 2021; Bhutta & Rizvi, 2022; Mullis et al., 2019). The TIMSS 2019 report found only 1% reaching intermediate or high proficiency, with the majority scoring below 33%. The poor quality of science teaching is a key factor. A recent study of 357 science classrooms found that the majority of lessons scored below 1.5 on the Classroom Observation Scale (COS), indicating weak classroom practices (Bhutta & Rizvi, 2022). Most teachers relied predominantly on transmissive pedagogies, creating a gap between curriculum aspirations and classroom realities. Bridging this gap requires evidence-based adaptable pedagogies suited to the resource constraints of Pakistani schools.

Game-Based Learning in Science Education

Game-based learning (GBL) has been known to enhance both cognitive and affective engagement in science education (Chen et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2022). When designed with disciplinary precision and cognitive rigour, games can foster motivation and improve conceptual understanding (De Freitas, 2018; Lei et al., 2022). Psychologically, the appeal of GBL lies in its responsiveness to learners’ intrinsic needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness through embedding challenges, providing immediate feedback, and engaging learners through progressive difficulty levels (Whitton, 2010; Shute et al., 2019). Pedagogically, GBL supports constructivist principles by positioning learners as active sense-makers who test, apply, and reorganise knowledge within contextualised problems. When properly designed, games immerse learners in experiential learning cycle of action, feedback, and reflection, thereby promoting both cognitive elasticity and disciplinary understanding (Gee, 2003; Lei et al., 2022; Krath et al., 2021).

Meta-analytic evidence indicates that GBL produces greater cognitive gains than conventional methods (Vogel et al., 2006; Sitzmann, 2011). Studies by Wouters et al. (2013) and Clark et al. (2016) provide strong evidence that game-based environments positively influence knowledge acquisition and retention, particularly when integrated with sound pedagogical design and meaningful feedback structures. Although recent studies report positive shifts in science learning and self-efficacy (Riopel et al., 2019; Wang & Zheng, 2021), these outcomes frequently depend on the adaptive design quality of the game, particularly how challenge, feedback, and progression are orchestrated (Gee, 2007; Pirker et al., 2018).

While evidence affirms the positive impact of GBL on knowledge acquisition and retention, its applicability remains underexplored in low-resource contexts. Little is known about how GBL can be effectively designed and enacted within Pakistan’s public schools, where class size, instructional time, and infrastructure constrain practice. Moreover, existing research largely focuses on technology-intensive game designs that often reduces teachers’ position to ‘implementers’ rather than ‘co-designers’. Equally overlooked is how teachers’ participation in game design shapes their pedagogical reasoning, calibration of cognitive demand, and collaborative engagement in resource-constrained classrooms.

To respond to this gap, a project was initiated at the Aga Khan University Institute for Educational Development (AKU-IED) within its postgraduate programmes, Master of Education (MEd) and Master of Philosophy in Education (MPhil). Grounded in a Students-as-Partners (SaP) framework, this initiative engaged graduate students in designing non-digital games to teach science concepts at the primary and secondary levels. This case study explores how participation in game design served as a catalyst for student-teachers’ professional growth and pedagogical reflection. It foregrounds their experiences of navigating design challenges, negotiating cognitive demand, and developing contextually grounded science resources within the constraints of low-resource classrooms.

Design-Based Research Approach

The project employed a Design-Based Research (DBR) approach, well suited to addressing real-world educational challenges through iterative, collaborative design (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). 25 graduate students participated voluntarily, with ethical approval granted by the Aga Khan University Ethics Review Committee and informed consent secured from all participants. The project unfolded in three phases. Phase 1 comprised a 20-hour professional development workshop on game design, where student-teachers examined difficult science concepts, reflected on teaching experiences, and selected topics from Pakistan’s National Science Curriculum for game creation. In Phase 2, participants produced prototypes of board and card games, including draft rules and learning tasks. Games were exchanged, played, and refined through structured peer review, which required participants to evaluate playability, mechanics, and alignment with intended learning outcomes. Phase 3 involved piloting revised games in simulated classroom settings. Trials revealed challenges such as unclear rules, uneven progression, and weak balance between engagement and disciplinary depth. Content experts provided additional feedback on scientific accuracy and task sequencing. Drawing on these inputs, participants refined and finalised their designs, producing 40 non-digital games for primary and middle school science classrooms, with the first 20 published on the AKU-IED website (Ali et al., 2025).

Insights from Student-Teachers’ Experiences of Game Design

The following section presents themes drawn from student-teachers’ experiences of designing educational games. These insights illustrate how they engaged with pedagogy, collaboration, and classroom realities through the game design process.

Evolving Pedagogical Reasoning Through Design

Beyond creating resources for students, the design process itself functioned as a form of professional learning for student-teachers. As they translated abstract concepts into rules, tokens, and tasks, participants became more conscious of how pedagogical choices shape learner engagement. Their reflections suggest a shift from seeing games as ‘fun activities’ to recognising them as structured tools that demand attention to cognitive challenge, progression, and conceptual accuracy. The collaborative nature of design also surfaced important lessons: groups negotiated roles, debated trade-offs between simplicity and rigour, and drew on collective expertise to refine their games. These experiences deepened their understanding of active learning principles and highlighted the value of collaboration in creating classroom resources.

Games as Tools for Enhancing Conceptual Understanding

The games revealed genuine potential to make abstract scientific ideas tangible. In the Atomic Structure board game, players arranged protons, neutrons, and electrons to create stable atoms, transforming an abstract model into an interactive spatial task. Such representations not only supported comprehension but also foregrounded how game mechanics can act as epistemic tools – artefacts that shape how knowledge is encountered and made meaningful. Yet this very strength illuminated a deeper dilemma: pedagogical accessibility carries the risk of conceptual dilution. Representing atomic theory through symbolic tokens sharpened recognition of particle roles but also risked misrepresenting the relational intricacies of atomic behaviour. This echoes Squire’s (2013) concern that games may ‘flatten’ disciplinary knowledge if design choices privilege playability over fidelity. The critical challenge here is not whether to simplify, but how to simplify without eroding disciplinary essence. Teacher-educators must therefore scaffold student-teachers in identifying what Shulman (1986) called ‘the deep structures’ of disciplinary knowledge: those elements that must remain intact even in playful representations. Structured reflection on these ‘non-negotiables’ could help future teachers preserve scientific integrity while making content accessible through games.

From Recall to Reasoning: Designing for Different Levels of Thinking

The design process offered student-teachers a rare opportunity to interrogate the cognitive work demanded of their learners. Early prototypes tended to rely on recall level (e.g., matching, naming, or simple identification) which reflects a common novice assumption that activity alone guarantees learning. However, peer review raised a critical point: What kind of thinking does this task actually require? This interrogation catalysed a developmental shift. For example, in the game Pollution Solution (Figure 1), factual recall was replaced with scenario-based reasoning, where players analysed causes of pollution and proposed solutions. In this case, design acted as an apprenticeship in pedagogical reasoning, prompting participants to connect learning outcomes with task structures more deliberately.

Having said that, designing games at higher cognitive levels required student-teachers to distinguish clearly between surface activity and genuine cognitive engagement – a distinction that demands meta-pedagogical awareness which many novice teachers are only beginning to cultivate.

To consolidate this developmental shift, teacher education programmes should embed structured tools for cognitive calibration within the design cycle. Asking student-teachers to map each task against established frameworks such as Bloom’s taxonomy or Anderson and Krathwohl’s revision would make the ‘invisible architecture’ of pedagogy more explicit. Institutionalising such reflection would ensure that the shift from recall to reasoning is cultivated as a professional habit rather than left to chance

Striking a Balance Between Fun and Learning

The design process highlighted student-teachers’ growing capacity to think critically about the relationship between enjoyment and learning. In early iterations, games demonstrated how playful mechanics such as competition, reward and penalty, increasing level of difficulty, and challenges can create an appealing structure that motivates learners. Participants recognised that these features were not trivial; they represented an essential ingredient of game-based pedagogy, since affective engagement often opens the door to sustained cognitive effort.

However, as prototypes were trialled among peers, participants realised that mechanics centred solely on excitement could obscure the underlying pedagogical purpose. For example, in the first version of Circuit Maze (see figure 2), success was determined by how quickly a player could complete the circuit, rather than by their ability to reason about electrical flow.

This tension revealed a critical insight that enjoyment and rigour are not automatically aligned, and privileging one dimension can easily compromise the other. For novice designers, the difficulty lay in discerning when playful elements enhanced learning and when they distracted from it. Therefore, rather than treating engagement and rigour as opposing poles, we should help student-teachers learn to manage the productive tension between the two. One practical approach is to embed a dual-lens evaluation protocol into peer review, requiring designers to justify each game mechanic both in terms of its capacity to motivate and its capacity to elicit disciplinary reasoning

Conclusion

This case study explored engaging post-graduate students as partners in designing non-digital science games. The study highlighted that when student-teachers are invited to design materials that respond to real classroom needs, they not only develop a deeper understanding of pedagogy, but also gain confidence in their capacity to contribute meaningfully to the teaching process.

Embedding Co-Creation as a Sustainable Habit of Practice

This case study presents a sustainable model for teacher education, positioning graduate students as co-designers of curriculum-aligned games through the Students-as-Partners approach. By creating board and card games with low-cost, locally available materials, participants ensured contextual relevance, ownership, and feasibility for classroom integration. The model’s adaptability is central: designs can be repurposed across subjects, embedded in coursework, or linked to practicum tasks. Sustainability lies not in static artefacts but in cultivating design dispositions; teachers learning to adapt, reuse, and innovate. In this sense, co-creation becomes a durable professional habit that positions teachers as resource developers rather than resource adopters.

Inclusive Practices in Game Creation

Game design fostered inclusive participation among student-teachers with diverse strengths – scientific expertise, digital skills, or writing abilities – ensuring collaborative ownership. The resulting games incorporated visual aids, simple language, and flexible rules, enabling engagement across varied learner needs. Some included differentiated levels to match cognitive readiness. By prioritising low-cost materials and the classroom realities of Pakistani public schools, participants linked inclusivity with feasibility, reflecting how game design can embed equity within pedagogical practice.

 Key Takeaways

• Positioning student-teachers as co-designers of educational games cultivated professional agency, collaborative practice, and deeper engagement with pedagogy. In this role, they shifted from passive receivers of methods to active pedagogical decision-makers.
• Educational games, when carefully designed, can render abstract science concepts accessible and engaging. Yet this accessibility depends on balancing playability with disciplinary accuracy, ensuring that simplification does not erode conceptual depth.
• The implications for teacher education are significant: programmes must move beyond presenting games as ready-made tools and instead prepare future educators to design, adapt, and critically evaluate games in relation to cognitive goals, contextual constraints, and meaningful learning.

References

Ali, K. Q., Nimarta, W., & Bano, R. (Eds.). (2025). Educational games for Science learning: A teacher`s toolkit for board and card games to support active science learning. Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development. https://ecommons.aku.edu/books/178/

ASER Pakistan (2021). Annual status of education report (ASER) Pakistan 2021. https://aserpakistan.org/document/aser/2021/reports/national/ASER_report_National_2021.pdf

Bhutta, S. M., & Rizvi, N. F. (2022). Assessing teachers’ pedagogical practices and students’ learning outcomes in science and mathematics across primary and secondary school level: A nationwide study (2018-21). Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, 1-4. https://ecommons.aku.edu/pakistan_ied_pdck/317

Chen, S., Jamiatul-Husnaini, S., & Chen, J. J. (2020). Effects of games on students’ emotions of learning science and achievement in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 42(13), 2224–2245. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1817607

Cheng, M. T., Chou, W. C., Hsu, M. E., & Cheng, F. C. (2022). Blending educational gaming with physical experiments to engage high school students in inquiry-based learning. Journal of Biological Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2022.2157861

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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065

De Freitas, S. (2018). Are games effective learning tools? A review of educational games. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 74–84. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26388380

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1145/950566.950595

Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games+ good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning, and literacy. Peter Lang. https://www.peterlang.com/document/1054442

Krath, J., Schürmann, L., & Von Korflesch, H. F. (2021). Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games, and game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 125, 106963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963

Lei, H., Wang, C., Chiu, M. M., & Chen, S. (2022). Do educational games affect students’ achievement emotions? Evidence from a meta‐analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(4), 946–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12664

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2019). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105642

Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/internationalresults

Pirker, J., Lesjak, I., Punz, A., & Drachen, A. (2018). Social aspects of the game development process in the Global Game Jam. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons, and Game Creation Events (pp. 9–16). https://doi.org/10.1145/3196697.3196700

Riopel, M., Nenciovici, L., Potvin, P., Chastenay, P., Charland, P., Sarrasin, J. B., & Masson, S. (2019). Impact of serious games on science learning achievement compared with more conventional instruction: An overview and a meta-analysis. Studies in Science Education, 55(2), 169–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2019.1722420

Shute, V. J., Ke, F., Almond, R. G., Rahimi, S., Smith, G., & Lu, X. (2019). How to increase learning while not decreasing the fun in educational games. Learning Science: Theory, Research, and Practice, 40. https://myweb.fsu.edu/vshute/pdf/feldman.pdf

Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta‐analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer‐based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x

Squire, K. (2013). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital age. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 59(1), 129-132.

Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of educational computing research, 34(3), 229-243. https://doi.org/10.2190/FLHV-K4WA-WPVQ-H0YM

Wang, M., & Zheng, X. (2021). Using game-based learning to support learning science: A study with middle school students. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(2), 167-176.

Whitton, N. (2010). Game engagement theory and adult learning, 42(5), 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110378587

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031311

About the authors

Kiran Qasim Ali is Senior Instructor at Aga Khan University – Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan, specialising in science education and game-based learning. Wadhwani Nimarta (MPhil Education, 2024) and Ruby Bano (M.Ed. 2024) are alumni of AKU-IED who collaborated on this project during their graduate studies.

Corresponding Author: Kiran Qasim Ali, kiranqasim.ali@aku.edu