It’s Not the Game, It’s the Reward: A Fair Look at Learning Games

Do learning games help kids learn at all?

You will read that games are bad for learning. That is not what the studies we hold say. And it is not fair to you either.

Sailer and Homner (2020) pooled the studies on game features in learning. They found small, real gains. Learners learned a little more. They felt a little more driven. They did a little more of the work.

So a good game is not the enemy. A puzzle at your child’s level is a fine thing. So is a story they want to finish. So is a challenge they pick.

But the same review found a catch. Much of the boost came from outside rewards. And part of it faded once the game stopped feeling new. How long the gains last is still an open question.

That is why “good or bad?” is the wrong question. The better one is this: what kind of drive does the game build? If your child already plays a learning game, you did nothing wrong. This post is about one thing to check.

If the game is not the problem, what is?

Look at a learning app in two layers. One layer is the game itself. That is the puzzle, the story, the challenge. The other layer sits on top. That is the points, badges, streaks and leaderboards. We call it the reward layer.

One review sorted the two. Almeida and colleagues (2023) mapped the harms people reported from game features. The features named most were badges, leaderboards, contests and points. Games as a whole were not the problem named. This was a map of reports, not a trial. It points one way. It does not settle it.

The 1999 review shows why the reward layer matters. Deci, Koestner and Ryan looked at prizes tied to doing a task. Those prizes lowered people’s own wish to do the task later. That was when they were free to choose. The drop was stronger in children than in college students. And it showed up on tasks people already liked. So the interest at stake is the interest your child already has.

There is a second gap. Self-determination theory says drive runs on three needs. They are choice, belonging and feeling capable. Huang and colleagues (2023) checked game features against all three. The features helped with choice and belonging. They did no better on feeling capable. Some features left learners feeling less capable.

Feeling capable comes from getting good at something. To us, no point total hands that over. A points system makes a child feel like they’re learning. Real mastery makes them feel capable. Our page on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation goes deeper on the three needs.

Is a reward ever the right call, and how do you check an app?

Now the fair part. Not every reward does harm. Cameron, Pierce and Eisenberger answered the 1999 review in the same journal issue. They argued the harm is narrower than people say. Spoken praise did not lower drive. Neither did surprise rewards. And on a task with little pull at the start, a reward helps. That part is their argument. The 1999 review agrees on one piece. Rewards not tied to the task showed no clear harm.

So a reward has a fair place. Say your child will not open a reading app at all. A small prize to get started is a fair move. The question is what happens next. Does the skill take over, or do the points stay in charge?

Here is the one question to ask of any app. Does this build real skill, or does it only reward activity? Three ways to check it tonight:

• Sit beside your child for ten minutes. Watch what they are proud of. Is it the badge, or the thing they figured out?
• Ask what they got better at this week. A skill has an answer. A streak does not.
• Notice the pull of the points. Does your child tap through to keep a streak alive? To us, that looks like activity, not learning.

Your own words count too. “I saw how hard you worked on that” is a reward. It is one aimed at the work, not the prize. Here is more on what your praise teaches. Is the app a math game? Our guide shows how to spot the math games that build math. And this one-page guide shows how to pick a learning game that teaches.