Thursday, 15 January 2026

Science games in the classroom: powerful tool or pointless distraction?

There are now hundreds of science-based games on the market. Some are slick digital simulations, others are board or card games promising to make learning “fun”. But do they really belong in the classroom—or is it better to just teach the students properly?

As with most things in education, the honest answer is: it depends how (and why) they’re used.

What science games do well

When chosen carefully, science games can add genuine value.

1. Motivation and engagement

Games can lower the barrier to entry. Students who might switch off during a traditional explanation often lean in when there’s a challenge, a score, or a goal. This can be especially useful at the start of a topic.

2. Visualising the abstract

Some concepts are hard to grasp from words alone. Simulations and games can help students see ideas like:

Forces and motion
Energy transfer
Ecosystems and feedback loops
Systems in equilibrium

A good example is Kerbal Space Program, which—used carefully—can make orbital mechanics and Newton’s laws feel far more concrete than equations on a board.

3. Safe experimentation

Games allow students to try things that would be impossible, dangerous, or expensive in real life. Making mistakes is cheap—and that’s valuable.

Where science games fall down

This is where teachers need to be cautious.

1. Fun does not equal learning

Students can happily play a science-themed game for an hour and learn very little if:

The science is hidden behind mechanics
Success relies on trial-and-error rather than understanding
There’s no reflection or follow-up discussion

They may remember winning—but not why.

2. Oversimplification and misconceptions

Games often simplify reality to make play possible. Without guidance, students can walk away with:

Incorrect models
Half-understood ideas
“Rules” that only apply inside the game world

This is particularly risky at GCSE and A-level, where precision matters.

3. Passive consumption

Some digital games look interactive but actually encourage button-pressing rather than thinking. If the student isn’t required to explain, predict, or justify, learning is shallow.

So… teach or game?

It’s a false choice.

The strongest classrooms do both—but in the right order

Games should not replace teaching.
They should support it.

A sensible structure looks like this:

Teach the core idea explicitly
Clear explanations, diagrams, demonstrations, worked examples.
Use a game to explore or reinforce
Let students apply ideas, test limits, and make mistakes.
Debrief and formalise
Discuss what happened, link back to theory, correct misconceptions.

Without steps 1 and 3, the game is entertainment.
With them, it becomes a learning tool.

Practical classroom uses that actually work

Science games are most effective when used as:

Starters – to introduce a topic or spark curiosity
Plenaries – to consolidate learning already taught
Revision tools – especially for retrieval practice
Homework extensions – with guiding questions

They are least effective as:

A full lesson replacement
A reward with no learning objective
A time-filler when planning runs short

The teacher still matters most

No game—however clever—can:

Diagnose a misconception in real time
Ask why a student chose an answer
Adapt explanations on the fly
Connect ideas across topics

That’s still the teacher’s job.

Games don’t teach students.
Teachers teach students.
Games, at best, are tools that help us do it better.

Bottom line

Science games do have a place in the classroom—but only when they are:

Carefully chosen
Clearly framed
Actively discussed
Anchored to solid teaching

Used wisely, they enhance learning.
Used lazily, they just make noise.

Thursday, 15 January 2026