By: Nicole Damari, MD, MS,
All eyes on them with the clock ticking down, a player glances at the word on their card, then animatedly starts describing it while avoiding a list of forbidden words. Frustrated at their lack of success, they pause to strategize before trying to leverage information they think will resonate with a particular teammate. The down-to-the-wire success is followed by whoops of joy and laughter.
The scene from the classic game Taboo (1) is the picture of engagement, one of the key features that game-based learning (GBL) hopes to promote. In fact, one group leveraged the specific engagement incentives of Taboo to teach reduction in jargon use by creating a version in which players must describe medical terms while avoiding common jargon terms (2). While we can easily recognize engagement in this scene, pinning down the specific features of engagement can be more challenging.
In the GBL literature, one definition suggests that “engagement in games is the active and focused investment of effort in a game environment” (3). This definition highlights that engagement requires action on the part of the learner, focus on a particular task or idea, and effortful energy expenditure. The umbrella concept is further elaborated to include four types of engagement: behavioral, affective, sociocultural, and cognitive (3). In addition to identifying learning objectives, considering engagement objectives through each of these four lenses can serve as a helpful guide in the selection of game design elements.
As we explore each type of engagement, consider how the game design elements of the medical jargon variant of Taboo promote engagement in the service of its learning objectives.
Behavioral Engagement: Behavioral engagement describes a player’s physical actions in the game environment. Clicks in a video game, moving pieces in a board game, or in this case, trying to cleverly describe a word to your teammates. The primary design feature that fosters behavioral engagement are game mechanics, or what we are actually asking players to do. Ideally, the mechanics are leveraged to promote prolonged exposure to and interaction with the target material.
Affective Engagement: Affective engagement describes a player’s emotional response to the game, such as investment in a storyline or an emotional response to aesthetic design. The evoked emotions don’t always need to be positive, either; in the Taboo scene, the player became frustrated and anxious, pushing them to think differently about achieving their goal. Key game design elements that impact affective engagement are narrative, aesthetic design, and incentive systems. Promoting affective engagement may convince players to push through challenges they might otherwise have abandoned.
Sociocultural Engagement: Sociocultural engagement leverages social and cultural experiences to motivate learning and interactivity. Design elements like player interactions, competitive vs cooperative structures, and modes of communication are key considerations. In the case of taboo, the structure of the game involves two teams in competition, as well as the opportunity to apply social and cultural knowledge that might resonate with teammates.
Cognitive Engagement: Finally, cognitive engagement describes active information processing, organization, and integration in pursuit of meaning making. While the most desired engagement outcomes, it can be challenging to measure. In the example above, the focused cognitive engagement during the player’s pause to strategize could be mislabelled as behavioral disengagement by an observer. To some extent, promoting cognitive engagement flows from the three other types of engagement discuss above, though it is important to ensure that players are incentivized to cognitively engage with the target material rather than extraneous content. In addition, deliberately designed incentive systems that promote motivation can further foster cognitive engagement (4). Engagement in GBL is a complex construct. While the framework presented here is one of many, it is a helpful tool to guide deliberate selection of game design elements to promote learning. When incorporating game-based elements into a curriculum, considering your engagement goals through each of these lenses can be invaluable as you aim to maximize the unique potential of games.
Photo curtesy of IStock
References
- Taboo: The game of unspeakable fun. Pawtucket, RI: Parker Brothers: Hasbro, 2009.
- Burney E, Arora M, Gaillard M, Herzig M, Lester L, Park S, Coleman C. A Game-Based Tool for Reducing Jargon Use by Medical Trainees. MedEdPORTAL. 2024;20:11411. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11411
- Schwartz, R. N., & Plass, J. L. (2020). Types of engagement in learning with games. In J. L. Plass, R. E. Mayer, & B. D. Homer (Eds.), Handbook of game-based learning (pp. 53–80). The MIT Press.
- https://icenet.blog/2025/06/17/align-the-game-to-your-aim-considering-gamification-through-the-lens-of-self-determination-theory/
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The University of Ottawa. For more details on our site disclaimers, please see our ‘About’ page