Examines gamified gameboards' impact on learning outcomes in architecture students, suggesting enhanced engagement and collaboration.
Gamification offers new possibilities for architectural education by transforming site analysis from a passive, descriptive task into an active and collaborative learning experience. Traditional approaches often limit engagement and critical interpretation, whereas gamified methods can sustain motivation, usability, and peer collaboration while linking site data to meaningful learning outcomes. This study examines the Play to Place Physical Gameboards – Seri Iskandar (P2P–SI) module, designed to integrate local cultural narratives, tangible play mechanics, and storytelling into site exploration. Grounded in constructivist and experiential learning traditions and supported by gamification theory, the research focused on three dimensions: engagement and usability, social and collaborative impacts, and learning outcomes. The module was implemented with 101 second-year architecture students at Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perak Branch, during site analysis exercises. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire and analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) to test the relationships between the three dimensions. The results show that engagement and usability directly influenced learning outcomes and strongly shaped social and collaborative impacts, while collaboration in turn enhanced learning outcomes. Students highlighted that clear rules, intuitive play, and immediate feedback supported sustained engagement, while collaborative play improved communication, teamwork, and shared site interpretation. These findings demonstrate that embedding usability and collaboration within gamified tools can produce stronger outcomes, including spatial reasoning, cultural understanding, and reflective thinking. The study positions P2P–SI as a student-centred and culturally relevant pedagogical innovation that bridges technical knowledge with social and reflective dimensions of architectural design education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nadzamuddin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: