View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Serious Game to Educate Children about the Urban Water Cycle

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Serious Game to Educate Children about the Urban Water Cycle
Language: English
Authors: Xavier Garcia (ORCID 0000-0002-1789-7403), Elena Domene, Xabier Goenaga, Antonio Rodriguez-Benitez, Mar Satorras, Vicenç Acuña, Ariadna Martínez-Ruiz, Imma Boada (ORCID 0000-0002-0001-8193), Lluís Corominas
Source: British Journal of Educational Technology. 2025 56(6):2367-2386.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Instructional Effectiveness, Educational Games, Water, Urban Areas, Elementary School Students, Scores, Natural Resources, Video Games, Learner Engagement, Play, Environmental Education, Gender Differences
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13578
ISSN: 0007-1013
1467-8535
Abstract: Serious games combine education and entertainment to create engaging and effective learning experiences, potentially contributing to science literacy and environmental awareness. This research aims to investigate the effectiveness of a particular serious game, H2OeduK, in educating children aged 10 to 11 years on the urban water cycle. Specifically, a study was conducted in four schools, where 140 students played the game and completed pre- and post-game surveys to assess knowledge acquisition and the influence of specific socio-demographic and gaming contextual factors. The relationship between the serious game evaluation and the knowledge acquisition scores was also explored. Results indicate that playing H2OeduK significantly enhanced children's understanding of the urban water cycle, establishing it as an effective tool for promoting water literacy and encouraging the protection of water resources. Neither gender nor play mode (individual or pair play) appeared to affect the game's effectiveness, while engaging in video gameplay positively impacted knowledge acquisition. Participants' evaluation of the game in terms of gamer experience (engagement, playfulness and self-reported learning) did not seem to correlate with the level of learning achieved. Overall, this study underscores the potential of serious games like H2OeduK to effectively educate young learners on key sustainability challenges.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1486313
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGyG0MvnjgON-BmagQw7-LNAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIQBfeswElpIc2GbpwIBEICBm5Yfjn4VRmvqk4jiTq9kGe0sKnDgePDxr1t0bQC-pTSTVuO8RK_voC8yiX70w9__SO-OWulYRXO19ByXOQDlKBYfgAHQ6idtb0F2jYW_c0OFKbFnG9FV9YkvOdZ4OZ2OnYqsOxiTb_XRPfA8thXsqSfw6xWSkEDEUskntCMeHbd-gVAs7hL9350cc1G6H5oMNpuyLyCw-1_5Q8gv
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0188606179;58i01nov.25;2025Oct14.06:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188606179-1">Evaluating the effectiveness of a serious game to educate children about the urban water cycle </title> <p>Serious games combine education and entertainment to create engaging and effective learning experiences, potentially contributing to science literacy and environmental awareness. This research aims to investigate the effectiveness of a particular serious game, H2OeduK, in educating children aged 10 to 11 years on the urban water cycle. Specifically, a study was conducted in four schools, where 140 students played the game and completed pre‐ and post‐game surveys to assess knowledge acquisition and the influence of specific socio‐demographic and gaming contextual factors. The relationship between the serious game evaluation and the knowledge acquisition scores was also explored. Results indicate that playing H2OeduK significantly enhanced children's understanding of the urban water cycle, establishing it as an effective tool for promoting water literacy and encouraging the protection of water resources. Neither gender nor play mode (individual or pair play) appeared to affect the game's effectiveness, while engaging in video gameplay positively impacted knowledge acquisition. Participants' evaluation of the game in terms of gamer experience (engagement, playfulness and self‐reported learning) did not seem to correlate with the level of learning achieved. Overall, this study underscores the potential of serious games like H2OeduK to effectively educate young learners on key sustainability challenges. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic Educating children about the urban water cycle raises awareness and promotes responsible water usage.Serious games provide interactive and engaging ways to teach children about the urban water cycle and other environmental issues.Studies suggest that serious games can be effective in enhancing learning outcomes and promoting environmental education.What this paper adds The study provides empirical evidence on the effectiveness of H2OeduK serious game in teaching children about environmental & management concepts related to the urban water cycle.Gender does not significantly influence the acquisition of environmental knowledge through this serious game.Individual gameplay with H2OeduK is as effective as collaborative gameplay for teaching children about the urban water cycle.Implications for practice and/or policy Incorporating serious games into educational practices can be a valuable tool for teaching complex sustainability challenges to children, such as urban water cycle problems.Objective measures, like knowledge acquisition surveys, are crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of serious games in fostering learning outcomes.Further research is needed to explore the long‐term impact of serious games on knowledge retention and behavioural change and to understand their effectiveness in promoting sustainable development.</p> <p>Keywords: environmental education; gaming factors; schools; serious game; socio‐demographic differences; urban water cycle</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>The urban water cycle (UWC) refers to the process by which water is abstracted, used, treated and returned to the environment. Teaching society, especially children, about the UWC is important as it raises awareness of the role of water in our daily lives and the significance of managing and preserving our water resources to ensure access to clean water and sanitation as a basic human right (McCarroll & Hamann, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>]). We aim to empower children and future generations through education. By gaining knowledge about the UWC and its management issues, children can develop a profound understanding of the environmental impact of their actions. This awareness enables them to become responsible water users, make informed decisions and actively contribute to the protection of this essential resource, ensuring a sustainable future (Liefländer et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref2">19</reflink>]). Not only does educating children about environmental behaviour influence their own actions, but it can also have a positive impact on the behaviour of adults. Research by Damerell et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref3">7</reflink>]) has shown that the attitudes of children can influence those of their parents, underscoring the value of environmental education as a tool for promoting sustainability.</p> <p>While traditional classroom lectures based on textbooks can be effective in teaching about water issues, they may not be as engaging for students as more interactive and experiential approaches, such as hands‐on activities or the use of video game technologies and methodologies (Barab et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>]; Wouters et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref5">35</reflink>]). Besides, it is well known that individuals in a classroom possess unique cognitive preferences, strengths and challenges that influence how they best acquire and retain information. By employing a variety of teaching methods, educators can better engage students who may struggle with traditional approaches, fostering a more supportive and accessible learning atmosphere (Kaur & Kaur, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref6">16</reflink>]). In this sense, there has been a growing trend in recent years towards using digital serious games to educate children about environmental issues (Appel et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]; Nunes et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref8">22</reflink>]; Ouariachi et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref9">23</reflink>]; Panagiotopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref10">24</reflink>]; Tan & Nurul‐Asna, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref11">29</reflink>]; Veronica & Calvano, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref12">32</reflink>]). A digital serious game (hereafter referred to as a serious game) is a type of interactive digital game that is designed to be both entertaining and educational. By combining elements of fun and play with educational content, serious games can engage students and promote learning in a way that traditional classroom lectures or textbooks cannot (Djaouti et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref13">8</reflink>]; Khelifa & Mahdjoub, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]). From a recent review of the use of serious games to educate children, it can be deduced that they can be an effective tool for enhancing learning outcomes, including environmental education topics (Yanti et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref15">36</reflink>]) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Saitua‐Iribar et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref16">26</reflink>]). Despite their potential, there is a research gap in the evaluation of the effectiveness of serious games to educate children on environmental issues (Liarakou et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]). Few studies have empirically demonstrated their effectiveness, but those that have done so report positive outcomes (Appel et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>]; Veronica & Calvano, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref19">32</reflink>]). Additionally, there is little research on how the socio‐demographic characteristics of children influence the environmental knowledge acquired through serious games, as well as other gaming contextual variables (Wouters et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref20">35</reflink>]) and game evaluation scores (Iten & Petko, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref21">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>The aim of this study was to contribute to the development of a comprehensive approach to educating primary school students about the UWC using a serious game called H2OeduK. Specifically designed for students aged 10 to 11 years, H2OeduK is intended to develop knowledge, skills and behavioural patterns that can be applied to real‐world situations related to the water cycle, from tap to river. It thus has characteristics of educational and motivational games by both informing players and motivating them to adopt environmentally friendly behaviours (dos Santos et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref22">9</reflink>]). This study focuses on the evaluation of the serious game effectiveness in transferring the concepts it was designed for. We conducted sessions at four schools, where students played the game and were surveyed both before and after playing. The results from the pre‐ and post‐game survey questionnaires were compared with determine the contribution of the serious game to the students' knowledge acquisition on the urban water cycle and water management. Additionally, we evaluated whether students' knowledge acquisition was associated with socio‐demographic, the gaming contextual factors and the serious game evaluation items. Therefore, the specific research questions of this study are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What is the impact of the serious game H2OeduK on 10‐ to 11‐year‐old students' understanding of the urban water cycle?</item> <p></p> <item> How do socio‐demographic factors and gaming contextual factors influence the effectiveness of H2OeduK in promoting students' knowledge acquisition on the urban water cycle?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the relationship between students' evaluation of H2OeduK and their knowledge acquisition on the urban water cycle?</item> </ulist> <p>This study aimed to promote water literacy among 10‐ to 11‐year‐old students and encourage them to take an active role in protecting our water resources by demonstrating the effectiveness of the serious game H2OeduK as a teaching tool for the urban water cycle. The findings of this study will contribute to the ongoing debates about the use of serious games for water education in schools, thus advancing our understanding of the potential benefits and limitations of this specific tool. Ultimately, this research aimed to contribute to a more sustainable future by empowering young learners with the knowledge and skills they need to become informed and responsible stewards of our precious water resources. Importantly, we also seek to explore how socio‐demographic and gaming contextual factors may play a role in shaping the learning outcomes of students engaging with the game. Recognizing the significance of these factors, we aim to contribute to the broader discussion on the role of serious games for environmental education (Goh et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref23">12</reflink>]). By understanding how H2OeduK accommodates diverse socio‐economic backgrounds and genders, our study aimed to highlight the inclusivity of this educational tool, providing equitable learning opportunities for students regardless of their varying social and economic contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-3">MATERIALS AND METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188606179-4">The urban water cycle serious game—H2OeduK</hd> <p>H2OeduK is a serious game that, while entertaining, aims to bring scientific and technological knowledge in the field of the urban water cycle closer to the public, particularly to children. The game can be accessed via https://h2oeduk.icra.cat/ and Google Play Store. [Corrections added on 26 February 2025, after first online publication: 'computer game' has been corrected to 'game' and 'via the following link: https://water.test‐girona.com/game/game.html' has been corrected to 'via https://h2oeduk.icra.cat/ and Google Play Store', in this version.] The game has been collaboratively created by members of a water research centre (Catalan Institute for Water Research), with profound knowledge of the UWC and the environmental issues involved in its management, and a university research group with expertise in the design and development of serious games (Graphics and Imaging Laboratory of the University of Girona).</p> <p>H2OeduK consists of seven mini‐games that replicate different phases of the UWC (see Table 1). The game begins by illustrating household actions that pollute water and introducing principal domestic water pollutants. It then proceeds to reproduce actions generating these pollutants and simulates various phases of the urban water cycle, including the collection and transportation of wastewater and its treatment to improve water quality. After simulating different processes of a wastewater treatment plant, the game concludes in a river where players must prevent fish deaths by utilizing natural resources to eliminate remaining pollutants. The achievements in each mini‐game impact the inputs of the next one, contributing to the global objective of improving water quality. Player achievements are rewarded, and continuous feedback is provided to communicate progress. To complement game feedback, two narrators (inspired by real researchers in the water field, that is, Prof. Gustaf Olsson, emeritus professor from Lund University and Dr Anna Freixa, researcher at the Catalan Institute for Water Research) have been integrated into the game. They provide instructions to players and introduce the science underlying mini‐games via educational short capsules. Table 1 outlines the name, challenge, and the pedagogical objectives for each mini‐game.</p> <p>1 TABLE Summary of the mini‐games of H2OeduK.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Mini‐game name</th><th align="left">Game challenge</th><th align="left">Pedagogical objective</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Game elements presentation</td><td align="left">Match household action with water pollutants</td><td align="left">Learn the game's elements (water and pollutants) and how household actions can pollute water</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Household actions and water pollution</td><td align="left">Match household actions that contribute to water pollution with the house place where they take place</td><td align="left">Learn that urban wastewater systems are built to collect sewage at our households for treatmentLearn the impact of home actions on water pollution (eg, wet wipes and oil recycling)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sewer conservation</td><td align="left">Repair sewers and ensure that do not break or clog (due to wet wipes or oils and greases)</td><td align="left">Learn that sewers transport wastewater from households to wastewater treatment plantsLearn the importance of sewers maintenance</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The screen phase of a wastewater treatment plant</td><td align="left">Separate residues according to the type and size to avoid entering to other phases of the wastewater treatment plant</td><td align="left">Learn the phases of wastewater treatment plants focusing on the first step that remove big residues to avoid entering next phases</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The oil and greases removal tank of a wastewater treatment plant</td><td align="left">Remove oils, greases and sand from the wastewater treatment tank</td><td align="left">Learn the strategies used to remove oils and greases and sand in wastewater treatment plants</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The biological reactor of a wastewater treatment plant</td><td align="left">Remove pollutants from the tank choosing and feeding bacteria with pollutants and molecules</td><td align="left">Learn that biological reactions can remove dissolved pollutants generated at the households</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The river pollutants</td><td align="left">Remove pollutants that enter the river from the wastewater treatment plant to protect fish from dying</td><td align="left">Learn that wastewater treatment plants do not remove all pollutantsLearn how physical, biochemical and biological activities happening in stones, roots of trees and fallen trees inside rivers have some capacity to remove pollutants</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The game has been implemented in Unity (version [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref24">30</reflink>]) following a modular design to support the introduction of new mini‐games with minimal effort and allowing researchers to introduce concepts about recent scientific achievements. It is free and cross‐platform, compatible with computers, tablets and mobile phones. Supported languages include Catalan, Spanish, English, French and Dutch, and it can easily be translated into additional languages. Additionally, it provides functionalities to register players' actions to monitor their progress.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-5">Participants</hd> <p>The serious game sessions, totalling 7, were conducted in four schools, three located in different neighbourhoods of Barcelona and one in Girona (Catalonia) during May–June 2022. Approximately 140 students participated in the activities. The four schools were chosen from different socio‐economic neighbourhoods. This approach was adopted to ensure that the research included a diverse range of students from different backgrounds, thereby enriching the study and providing a broader perspective on the game's overall effectiveness.</p> <p>The household yearly income was €25,849 in School 1, €38,430 in School 2 and €78,476 in School 4 (INE, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>]). School 3 had a household yearly income similar to that of School 2. All participants were from the 5th grade, with ages ranging from 10 to 11 years old, comprising 53.03% boys, 44.70% girls and 2.27% categorized as undefined or non‐binary children. The school sessions design was approved by an ethics committee (code: CEBRU0046‐21), and all students provided informed written consent from their parents to participate.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-6">Procedure</hd> <p>All sessions were conducted using the same standardized approach. Each session lasted 1.5 hours and was facilitated by a minimum of two moderators trained on the use of the serious game and the questionnaires. These moderators were also members of the research team responsible for this paper and therefore experts on urban water. The sessions began with a general introduction of the UWC, and its management implications for the environment. None of the specific concepts referred to in the mini‐games and evaluation questions were mentioned in this introduction. Then, the next step was the completion of a 10‐minute questionnaire (pre‐survey) to gather the baseline of knowledge, which was completed individually by all participants. Then, the game session started with H2OeduK. It was arranged for all participants to play the same mini‐game at the same time, from the first to the last. Before starting each mini‐game, the moderators gave an explanation of their objectives and instructions, and solved specific questions posed by students. However, this introductory explanation did not go into more detail than the information provided by the game itself at the start of each mini‐game. This part of the session lasted 1 hour. After the game was concluded, all participants responded to another individual questionnaire (post‐survey), covering the same topics as the previous one but using different questions. More details on the pre and post‐questionnaires are presented in the following section. Finally, there was a 10‐minute wrap‐up session where students could ask questions and share suggestions. In three out of the four schools, tablets were used to play this serious game; in one school, Google Chromebooks were used. The latter had the functionality of having a touch screen, so that for practical purposes the characteristics of the devices used in all schools were the same.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-7">Data collection and treatment</hd> <p>As mentioned earlier, the data collection is done through two survey questionnaires completed before (pre‐questionnaire) and after (post‐questionnaire) playing H2OeduK. The pre‐questionnaire had two questions related to gender (<emph>Gender</emph>) and frequency of playing video games (computer or other devices) (<emph>DigGameFreq</emph>). This measure was created specifically for this study, as a review of existing literature did not reveal a validated instrument suitable for our research context. Other studies, however, use very similar metrics to measure the frequency of playing video games (Worth & Book, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]; Yap et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref27">37</reflink>]). The post‐questionnaire had three questions related to the evaluation of the serious game. These questions aimed at gaining insight into the gamer's experience in terms of engagement, playfulness and self‐reported learning, based on previous studies evaluating serious games (Alamri et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>]; Moizer et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref29">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Apart from these questions, both the pre‐ and post‐questionnaire had a total of 18 questions (9 pre‐ and 9 post‐) related to the concepts covered in the mini‐games (see Table 2), and created to evaluate the UWC knowledge acquisition by gaming with the H2OeduK serious game.</p> <p>2 TABLE Questions in the pre‐ and post‐survey questionnaire used to evaluate the UWC knowledge acquisition by gaming with the H2OeduK serious game.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">UWC concept</th><th align="left">Pre‐question</th><th align="left">Answer options</th><th align="left">Post‐question</th><th align="left">Answer options</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Household actions and water pollution</td><td align="left">What should be done with the used wet wipes?</td><td align="left">Throw them in the paper bin (blue bin)</td><td align="left">Do you think it is appropriate to flush wipes down the toilet?</td><td align="left">Yes, it is the most appropriate</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Throw them down the toilet</td><td align="left">It depends on whether the wipe is dirty or not</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Throw them in the waste bin (grey bin)</td><td align="left">No, it should always be thrown in the trash</td></tr><tr><td align="left">What should be done with used cooking oil?</td><td align="left">Put it in a container and take it to the green point</td><td align="left">What happens if you throw the used cooking oil down the sink?</td><td align="left">Nothing, the oil dissolves in the water</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Throw it in the waste bin (grey bin)</td><td align="left">There is no problem because it is food for fish</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Throw it down the kitchen sink or down the toilet</td><td align="left">It can clog the pipes that carry wastewater</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sewers' function</td><td align="left">What is the main function of sewers?</td><td align="left">Eliminate wastewater pollution</td><td align="left">Sewers are mainly...</td><td align="left">A set of pipes that bring gas and electricity to the houses</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Lead the wastewater to a place where the pollution is removed</td><td align="left">A set of pipes made to store rainwater</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bringing clean water to the taps in our homes</td><td align="left">A set of pipes that lead wastewater to treatment plants</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Wastewater treatment plant function</td><td align="left">Do you know what a wastewater treatment plant does?</td><td align="left">It takes and bottles the water from the river so that it can be drunk</td><td align="left">What would happen if there were no sewage treatment plants?</td><td align="left">There would be more fish in the river because they would have more food</td></tr><tr><td align="left">It treats the wastewater we generate in our homes, to remove pollutants</td><td align="left">The water in the river and on the beaches would be contaminated</td></tr><tr><td align="left">It cleans the air so we can breathe well</td><td align="left">Streets could flood more often when it rains</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The screen phase of a wastewater treatment plant</td><td align="left">What should be done first when the wastewater reaches the treatment plant?</td><td align="left">Larger debris needs to be removed</td><td align="left">To clean the wastewater, the sewage treatment plant first:</td><td align="left">Mix the wastewater with oxygen</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bleach must be thrown in to disinfect it</td><td align="left">Throw liquid detergent to clean</td></tr><tr><td align="left">All bacteria must be removed</td><td align="left">It uses grates to remove larger debris</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The oil and greases removal tank of a wastewater treatment plant</td><td align="left">How are oils and fats removed from wastewater?</td><td align="left">It is removed by people with shovels</td><td align="left">How are sands removed from wastewater in the treatment plant?</td><td align="left">They don't float; they fall and can be scooped up with shovels</td></tr><tr><td align="left">They are floated with air and withdrawn</td><td align="left">They float with oxygen and can be picked up with shovels</td></tr><tr><td align="left">They cannot be removed</td><td align="left">They are sucked with a water vacuum cleaners</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The biological reactor of a wastewater treatment plant</td><td align="left">Do you think bacteria are important in a wastewater treatment plant?</td><td align="left">Yes, they help us remove pollutants from wastewater</td><td align="left">Which organisms are able to remove water pollution in sewage treatment plants?</td><td align="left">The worms</td></tr><tr><td align="left">No, they pollute the water and are dangerous to health</td><td align="left">The bacteria</td></tr><tr><td align="left">No, they are only important in rivers</td><td align="left">The insects</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The river pollutants</td><td align="left">What do you think we can do to help eliminate water pollutants in rivers?</td><td align="left">Remove rocks and logs so that water can circulate more quickly</td><td align="left">Rivers contribute to eliminating the few pollutants that leave the treatment plants. How can we help them?</td><td align="left">Leaving logs and rocks for bacteria capable of removing pollutants to grow</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nothing can be done; pollution is not eliminated in rivers</td><td align="left">Removing the logs and rocks so they don't catch the garbage that reaches the rivers</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adding rocks and logs to rivers to grow bacteria capable of removing pollutants</td><td align="left">You don't need to do anything, the rivers will do this job just as well</td></tr><tr><td align="left">If the water in the river is cleaner...</td><td align="left">There will be more diversity (variety) of fish</td><td align="left">What effect does sewage pollution have on rivers?</td><td align="left">It makes the water in the rivers more transparent</td></tr><tr><td align="left">There will be less diversity (variety) of fish</td><td align="left">It has no effect. Rivers alone can remove all the pollution we generate in our homes.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">There will be the same diversity (variety) of fish as if it is dirtier</td><td align="left">It harms fish and other organisms that live there</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: For all the questions used, there was a fourth response option 'I do not know'.</p> <p>The UWC knowledge pre‐ and posttest questions were also developed specifically for this study, as no existing validated measures were found in the literature, but their design is supported by the extensive expertise of the developers. The first draft of these learning evaluation questions was developed by a group of scientists specializing in the field of urban water management and freshwater ecology. This draft was then iteratively evaluated by the wider research team, which consisted of 10 individuals (seven women and three men). We tested the final draft of the questionnaire by applying it with children from the family network of the team members. The final version of the questionnaire was printed on paper to be used to collect responses from the pupils during the school sessions. A copy of both (pre‐ and post‐survey questionnaires) can be found in the Annex 1 of the supplementary materials. After the session, moderators went through the questionnaires to identify gaps in the answers, and asked children to fill in missing information if necessary. Valid questionnaires were collected, and the results were introduced into a spreadsheet.</p> <p>In addition to the data collected by the survey questions, other relevant information was collected for the analysis carried out in relation to the school where the session was conducted (<emph>School</emph>), the classroom (<emph>Classroom</emph>) and the playing mode during the session, either with one tablet per child or one tablet per two children (<emph>PlayMode</emph>). These data and the data collected in the questionnaires was processed to calculate the relevant variables for analysis and entered into the same database (Table 3).</p> <p>3 TABLE Description of the variables obtained from the treatment of the data collected in the pre‐ and post‐survey questionnaires and during the sessions.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Group</th><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="left">Description</th><th align="left">Measure units</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Learning</td><td align="left">IniScore</td><td align="left">Sum of the scores of the initial learning evaluation questions. For each correct answer, one point is added</td><td align="left">Ordinal: 0 to 9 score</td></tr><tr><td align="left">FinScore</td><td align="left">Sum of the scores of the final learning evaluation questions. For each correct answer, one point is added</td><td align="left">Ordinal: 0 to 9 score</td></tr><tr><td align="left">DifScore</td><td align="left">Difference between FinScore and IniScore</td><td align="left">Ordinal: −9 to 9 score</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CatScorex</td><td align="left">This is a set of variables that counts the number of times that:CatScore1: A child did not get the initial question right but got the final question right (0, 1)CatScore2: A child got the initial question right and got the final question right (1, 1)CatScore3: A child got the initial question right and did not get the final question right (1, 0)CatScore4: A child did not get the initial question right and did not get the final question right (0, 0)</td><td align="left">Ordinal: 0 to 9 score</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Socio‐demographic & gaming context</td><td align="left">School</td><td align="left">School where the session is conducted. School 1 is in a lower income neighbourhood. School 4 is in a higher income neighbourhood. Schools 2 and 3 are in middle income neighbourhoods</td><td align="left">Nominal:1 = School 12 = School 23 = School 34 = School 4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Classroom</td><td align="left">Classroom in each school where the sessions were conducted</td><td align="left">Nominal:1 = S1 class a2 = S1 class b3 = S2 class a4 = S3 class a5 = S3 class b6 = S4 class a7 = S4 class b</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="left">Self‐reported gender of the children</td><td align="left">Nominal:1 = Girls2 = Boys3 = Others4 = NR/DK</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PlayMode</td><td align="left">Playing mode during the session, either with one tablet per child or one tablet per two children</td><td align="left">Nominal:1 = Individually2 = In pairs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">DigGameFreq</td><td align="left">Frequency of playing video games (computer or other devices)</td><td align="left">Ordinal:1 = Never or hardly ever2 = 1 or 2 days in the week3 = 3 or 4 days a week4 = 5 or 6 days a week5 = Every day</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Evaluation</td><td align="left">Val1</td><td align="left">Did you have fun playing the games?</td><td align="left">Ordinal:1 (nothing)–5 (a lot)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Val2</td><td align="left">Did you understand what you had to do in each of the games?</td><td align="left">Ordinal:1 (nothing)–5 (a lot)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Val3</td><td align="left">Do you think that by playing these games you have learned important things about the urban water cycle?</td><td align="left">Ordinal:1 (I have learned nothing)–5 (a lot of things)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 * Even though other genders or the 'not answer' options were available, only three persons selected these options. For statistical reasons, they were discarded from the gender‐focused analysis, but included in all the others.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-8">Statistical analysis</hd> <p>All statistical analyses were conducted using R software within the RStudio integrated development environment (RStudio Team, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref30">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>To check whether participating in the H2OeduK serious game sessions increased participants' knowledge of the UWC, we used a multilevel linear mixed‐effects model to account for the nested structure of the data. This model allows us to assess the effect of the intervention (pretest vs. posttest scores) while accounting for the dependencies that arise from the repeated measures within participants, as well as the hierarchical relationships between students, pairs and classrooms. Given the design of the study, where some students were paired within classrooms and each student contributed both a pretest and a posttest score, a simple linear model would not be appropriate because it would not account for the non‐independence of observations within each level. Instead, we employed a multilevel model with three levels of clustering to ensure that the hierarchical data structure was fully accounted for, leading to more accurate and reliable estimates.</p> <p>The model was structured as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Level 1: The repeated measures at the pretest and posttest for each participant (within‐student variation based on <emph>Student ID</emph>). This level captures the change in knowledge of the UWC for each participant over time.</item> <p></p> <item> Level 2: The students who did not played individually are nested in pairs (<emph>Pair ID</emph>) to account for potential correlations between students working together. Although pairs may exhibit different learning dynamics, this level controls for any dependencies that could arise from students affecting each other's performance during the game sessions.</item> <p></p> <item> Level 3: Students were nested within classrooms (based on <emph>Classroom</emph>), where classroom‐level differences (such as variations in socio‐economic background, classroom resources or different technologies used) could influence participants' learning. By including random effects at this level, we account for variability between classrooms that could confound the effect of the intervention.</item> </ulist> <p>The fixed effect in the model was the <emph>pre‐/</emph>posttest condition (coded as 0 for pretest and 1 for posttest), which allowed us to estimate the overall impact of the intervention on participants' UWC knowledge (<emph>IniScore</emph> vs. <emph>FinScore</emph>). Random intercepts were included at three levels: students (to capture within‐student repeated measures), pairs (to account for dependencies within pairs) and classrooms (to handle variability between classrooms).</p> <p>This modelling approach allows for robust inference by appropriately accounting for the complex structure of the data, ensuring that the variability across individual students, pairs and classrooms is considered when estimating the effect of the serious game on UWC knowledge acquisition. The model was estimated using restricted maximum likelihood (REML), which is suited for models with random effects as it provides unbiased estimates of variance components. To do that, we employed the lme4 package in R (Bates et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref31">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, we analysed the relationship between the dependent variable that describes the impact on UWC knowledge acquisition (<emph>DifScore</emph>) and several independent variables. Specifically, we examined the effects of <emph>Gender</emph>, <emph>PlayMode</emph> (playing mode during the session) and <emph>DigGameFreq</emph> (frequency of playing video games), as well as the evaluation variables (<emph>Val1</emph>, <emph>Val2</emph> and <emph>Val3</emph>). To do this, we employed a linear mixed‐effects model using again the lme4 package in R (Bates et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]). This approach was selected to account for the hierarchical structure of our data, which includes group‐level variations that could influence the outcome variable. The fixed effects part of the model includes the aforementioned independent variables, representing potential predictors of <emph>DifScore</emph>. The random effects structure of the model allows the intercept to vary across different levels, specifically across classrooms and pairs. By including random intercepts for both classrooms and pairs, we account for the fact that students within the same classroom or pair might exhibit more similar outcomes compared with students from different classrooms or pairs. This random intercept model helps control for unobserved heterogeneity at both the classroom and pair levels, ensuring that our results capture the true relationships between the predictors and the dependent variable while adjusting for the nested data structure.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-9">RESULTS</hd> <p>Out of the seven sessions conducted within the four schools, we obtained 132 valid and fully completed pre‐/post‐questionnaires. Table 4 shows descriptive statistics of the measured variables for the sampled children who participated in the sessions. Notably, the average score of the final learning evaluation questionnaire was 6.52 out of 9, improving by 3.03 points compared with the initial one. In other words, children went from getting only 38.78% of the questions right to 72.44% after playing the serious game. The distribution of these two variables is represented in Figure 1. Regarding the learning response (<emph>CatScorex</emph>), it was found that the most common outcome was that children initially answered the question incorrectly but were able to provide the correct answer in the final questionnaire (<emph>CatScore1</emph> = 3.64). Most of the children in all schools played in pairs (69.67%) due to limited availability of tablets and/or the preference of the children. Most of the children played every day (22.73%) or 1 or 2 days a week (21.21%) with a computer or another device. In general, they expressed having a good time playing the H2OeduK serious game (3.92/5), understanding fairly well the objectives of each mini‐game (3.58/5) and learning quite a lot about the urban water cycle (3.83/5).</p> <p>4 TABLE Descriptive statistics of the analysed variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Group</th><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="left">Category</th><th align="left"><italic>n</italic> (%)</th><th align="left">Mean (SD)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Learning</td><td align="left">IniScore</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char="(">3.49 (1.69)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">FinScore</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char="(">6.52 (2.13)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">DifScore</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char="(">3.03 (2.13)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CatScore1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char="(">3.64 (1.74)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CatScore2</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char="(">2.88 (1.69)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CatScore3</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char="(">0.61 (0.77)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CatScore4</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char="(">1.86 (1.89)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Socio‐demographic and gaming contextual</td><td align="left">School</td><td align="left">School 1</td><td align="char" char="(">28 (21.21%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">School 2</td><td align="char" char="(">37 (28.03%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">School 3</td><td align="char" char="(">44 (33.33%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">School 4</td><td align="char" char="(">23 (17.42%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Classroom</td><td align="left">S1 class a</td><td align="char" char="(">18 (13.6%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">S1 class b</td><td align="char" char="(">19 (14.4%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">S2 class a</td><td align="char" char="(">23 (17.4%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">S3 class a</td><td align="char" char="(">22 (16.7%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">S3 class b</td><td align="char" char="(">22 (16.7%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">S4 class a</td><td align="char" char="(">15 (11.4%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">S4 class b</td><td align="char" char="(">13 (9.8%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td align="left">Girls</td><td align="char" char="(">59 (44.70%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Boys</td><td align="char" char="(">70 (53.03%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Others</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (0.76%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">NR/DK</td><td align="char" char="(">2 (1.52%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">PlayMode</td><td align="left">Individually</td><td align="char" char="(">40 (30.30%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">In pairs</td><td align="char" char="(">92 (69.67%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">DigGameFreq</td><td align="left">Never or hardly ever</td><td align="char" char="(">14 (10.61%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">1 or 2 days a week</td><td align="char" char="(">28 (21.21%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3 or 4 days a week</td><td align="char" char="(">35 (26.52%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5 or 6 days a week</td><td align="char" char="(">25 (18.94%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Every day</td><td align="char" char="(">30 (22.73%)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Evaluation</td><td align="left">Val1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char="(">3.92 (0.96)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Val2</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char="(">3.58 (0.91)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Val3</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char="(">3.83 (0.91)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01nov25/bjet13578-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13578-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Box plots of IniScore and FinScore variables." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188606179-11">The effect of H2OeduK serious game on learning acquisition about the UWC</hd> <p>The results from the multilevel linear mixed‐effects model presented in Table 5 indicate a significant positive effect of the intervention on UWC knowledge scores. The fixed effects show that, on average, students' posttest scores are significantly higher than their pretest scores, with an estimated difference of 3.03 (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001). The intercept estimate of 3.472 represents the expected score for a student in the pretest condition. The random effects reveal variability at multiple levels. The variance in scores due to individual differences between students (<emph>Student ID</emph>) is 1.175, while the variability between pairs (<emph>Pair ID</emph>) and classrooms (<emph>Classroom</emph>) is much smaller, with variances of 0.017 and 0.277 respectively. The residual variance, representing unexplained variation, is 2.274 (SD = 1.508). These results indicate that although differences between students account for most of the variability in the data, pair and classroom effects also contribute, albeit to a lesser extent.</p> <p>5 TABLE Results of the multilevel linear mixed‐effects model for UWC knowledge scores (Score).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Fixed effects</th><th align="left">Estimate (<italic>β</italic>)</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>df</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic>‐Value</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic>‐Value</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Intercept</td><td align="char" char=".">3.472</td><td align="char" char=".">0.2578</td><td align="char" char=".">7.790</td><td align="char" char=".">13.470</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Pre‐/posttest (ref. is pretest)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.030</td><td align="char" char=".">0.187</td><td align="char" char=".">131.000</td><td align="char" char=".">16.320</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Random effects</th><th align="left">Variance</th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">Number of groups</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Student ID</td><td align="char" char=".">1.175</td><td align="char" char=".">1.084</td><td align="char" char=".">132</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Pair ID</td><td align="char" char=".">0.017</td><td align="char" char=".">0.132</td><td align="char" char=".">86</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Classroom</td><td align="char" char=".">0.277</td><td align="char" char=".">0.527</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Residual</td><td align="char" char=".">2.274</td><td align="char" char=".">1.508</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note</emph>: The model uses restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. Degrees of freedom (<emph>df</emph>) for the fixed effects were calculated using Satterthwaite's approximation.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-12">Influence of socio‐demographic, gaming contextual and evaluation variables on learning</hd> <p>The analyses conducted to test the influence of the socio‐demographic, gaming contextual and evaluation variables on the learning results, as captured by the <emph>DifScore</emph> variable, was conducted using a linear mixed‐effects model. The results are presented in Table 6. The analysis of fixed effects in the linear mixed‐effects model revealed several noteworthy findings. The intercept value (<emph>β</emph> = 0.509, <emph>p</emph> = 0.633) was not statistically significant, suggesting no baseline difference in <emph>DifScore</emph>. While being in pairs during the session showed a trend towards decreasing the outcome variable compared with being individually, this effect was not statistically significant (<emph>β</emph> = −0.355, <emph>p</emph> = 0.396). Similarly, being a boy exhibited a non‐significant association with a decrease in the outcome variable compared with girls (<emph>β</emph> = −0.674, <emph>p</emph> = 0.090). Regarding gaming habits, playing video games more frequently during the week was associated with significant increases in the outcome variable, with statistically significant effects observed for playing 5 or 6 days a week (<emph>β =</emph> 2.183, <emph>p =</emph> 0.005) and playing every day (<emph>β =</emph> 1.950, <emph>p =</emph> 0.008). Conversely, levels of enjoyment, understanding of the games and perception of learning important information about the UWC through gaming did not significantly influence the outcome variable. The random effects estimates revealed very low variance between pairs and classrooms (both variances <0.001). While this might suggest uniformity in these effects, it is important to interpret this finding with caution. The residual variance was 4.32 (SD = 2.079), a notable portion of variability remains unexplained, likely at the individual level.</p> <p>6 TABLE Fixed effects estimates from the linear mixed‐effects model for UWC knowledge score differences (DifScore).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Fixed effects</th><th align="left">Category</th><th align="left">Estimate (<italic>β</italic>)</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic>‐Value</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic>‐Value</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Intercept</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">0.509</td><td align="char" char=".">1.065</td><td align="char" char=".">0.478</td><td align="char" char=".">0.633</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PlayMode (ref. is individually)</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">−0.355</td><td align="char" char=".">0.416</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.852</td><td align="char" char=".">0.396</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender (ref. is girl)</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">−0.674</td><td align="char" char=".">0.394</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.710</td><td align="char" char=".">0.090</td></tr><tr><td align="left">DigGameFreq (ref. is never or hardly ever)</td><td align="left">1 or 2 days in the week</td><td align="char" char=".">1.415</td><td align="char" char=".">0.727</td><td align="char" char=".">1.948</td><td align="char" char=".">0.054</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3 or 4 days a week</td><td align="char" char=".">1.084</td><td align="char" char=".">0.724</td><td align="char" char=".">1.497</td><td align="char" char=".">0.137</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5 or 6 days a week</td><td align="char" char=".">2.183</td><td align="char" char=".">0.761</td><td align="char" char=".">2.870</td><td align="char" char=".">0.005<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Every day</td><td align="char" char=".">1.950</td><td align="char" char=".">0.723</td><td align="char" char=".">2.699</td><td align="char" char=".">0.008<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Val1</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">−0.073</td><td align="char" char=".">0.249</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.292</td><td align="char" char=".">0.771</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Val2</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">0.323</td><td align="char" char=".">0.252</td><td align="char" char=".">1.283</td><td align="char" char=".">0.202</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Val3</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">0.215</td><td align="char" char=".">0.248</td><td align="char" char=".">0.867</td><td align="char" char=".">0.388</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Random effects</th><th align="left">Variance</th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">Number of groups</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Pair ID</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">86</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Classroom</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Residual</td><td align="char" char=".">4.32</td><td align="char" char=".">2.079</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note</emph>: Degrees of freedom for the fixed effects were calculated using Satterthwaite's approximation (<emph>df</emph> = 119 for all the variables).</item> <item>5 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188606179-13">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>In this study, we examined how the serious game H2OeduK impacts school students aged 10–11 years' understanding of the UWC, revealing its effectiveness as an educational tool. Additionally, we explored the influence of specific socio‐demographic and gaming contextual factors on students' knowledge acquisition while playing H2OeduK. Additionally, we investigated the relationship between students' evaluations of H2OeduK and their actual knowledge acquisition about the UWC.</p> <p>Our study expects to add empirical evidence to debates about how new digital educational and training technologies and specifically serious games contribute to educate and raise awareness about water sustainability among children. Specifically, we have demonstrated the effectiveness of using the H2OeduK serious game to teach children about relevant environmental concepts and contemporary sustainability challenges related to the urban water cycle. Therefore, this research contributes to existing literature by providing novel empirical evidence on the effectiveness of environmental serious games to teach children about environmental issues (Appel et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]; Veronica & Calvano, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref34">32</reflink>]). The use of serious games in environmental education provides an engaging and interactive approach to learning that can enhance children's understanding and retention of complex concepts, such as those related to the urban water cycle. This is a socially relevant result as it supports the use of serious games as a tool to cultivate environmental awareness and responsibility in children from an early age, which could have positive implications for their future behaviour and decision making as adults (Chawla & Derr, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref35">5</reflink>]). Furthermore, the benefits for the environment could be realized earlier since intergenerational transfer of this learning can foster pro‐environmental behaviour also among adults (Damerell et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref36">7</reflink>]; Duvall & Zint, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref37">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study also explored whether the learning of environmental concepts is significantly conditioned by specific socio‐demographic and gaming contextual factors, and their satisfaction and experience when playing, as shown in serious game evaluation variables. Concretely, the gender of the gamer did not influence the knowledge acquisition. This is in line with previous research showing that gender does not significantly influence the learning process in serious games aimed at teaching environmental and STS concepts (Fraga‐Varela et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref38">11</reflink>]). H2OeduK was designed with excellent playability, and to be gender‐neutral, after a process of acknowledging gender inequalities and discriminations specifically in the wastewater sector (see Satorras et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref39">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regarding the gaming contextual variables explored, it can be seen that the urban water cycle sessions using H2OeduK are equally effective when children play individually or in pairs. Previous research has shown mixed results regarding the impact of collaborative versus individual gameplay on learning outcomes (Vogel et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref40">33</reflink>]). While some studies have demonstrated that there is no beneficial effect of collaborative gameplay on learning outcomes (van der Meij et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]), other observations have proved the contrary (Inkpen et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref42">14</reflink>]; Wouters et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref43">35</reflink>]). Our study suggests that playing H2Oeduk individually or in pairs does not affect their knowledge acquisition. In addition, we can also prove that those children who spend more time playing video games tend to have a higher learning rate with H2OeduK than those who do not play as often. A study conducted in Taiwan concluded that playing computer‐based video games improves participants' fact/recall processes but also promotes problem‐solving skills by recognizing multiple solutions for problems (Chuang & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref44">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Interestingly, none of the key evaluation factors—such as engagement, playfulness or self‐reported learning—were statistically linked to the actual knowledge gained about urban water cycle concepts. This finding suggests that traditional evaluation metrics may not fully capture the effectiveness of serious games, particularly when compared to knowledge acquisition tests. Similarly, Iten and Petko ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref45">15</reflink>]) found that players' self‐reported enjoyment of the serious game did not correlate with their learning test outcomes.</p> <p>Amidst growing concerns about water scarcity, addressing the increasing demand for water resources requires innovative educational approaches. Serious games like H2OeduK emerge as a promising solution, blending educational content with engaging gameplay to motivate students in understanding complex topics like the urban water cycle. This study's findings, showcasing the effectiveness of H2OeduK, contribute significantly to the ongoing discourse on serious games for water education in schools. By offering empirical evidence and emphasizing the need to consider socio‐demographic and gaming contextual factors, this research enhances our comprehension of the potential benefits and limitations of these tools. Ultimately, empowering young learners with water literacy fosters sustainable practices, ensuring access to clean and abundant water resources for future generations.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-14">Limitations of the study and future research</hd> <p>It is crucial to acknowledge certain limitations associated with the design of the pre‐ and post‐game questionnaires in this study. One notable aspect is the variability in question wording between the two sets of surveys. This decision was made deliberately to mitigate potential memory bias, as participants might be influenced by their prior responses. The use of similar but not identical questions aimed to encourage independent reflection on the information presented during gameplay while minimizing the risk of response biases. In fact, one possible disadvantage of using identical or similar pretests and posttests is the 'learning effect'. This effect happens when participants achieve higher scores on the posttest merely because they have seen the questions before. The increase in scores may not indicate actual learning from the intervention, but rather their familiarity with the specific questions and answers (Stratton, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref46">28</reflink>]). Despite this, and the fact that the approximation followed maintains thematic consistency in inquiries about similar concepts and learning outcomes, it introduces a level of variability. It is essential to recognize this limitation explicitly and highlight the trade‐off between perfect consistency and the potential biases associated with exact question replication. Future research could explore alternative questionnaire designs that strike a balance between maintaining consistency and allowing nuanced evaluation, taking into consideration the concerns raised by cognitive psychology literature.</p> <p>For the sessions in the schools, we employed a standardized approach facilitated by moderators with expertise in the UWC. The mini‐game topics were presented with a focus on introducing game objectives, rather than conveying detailed UWC information. Throughout the gameplay, moderators emphasized explaining playability aspects rather than delving into related concepts. However, we acknowledge the potential for minimal knowledge transfer during these phases of the session. Recognizing this limitation, future studies could benefit from a control group in which facilitators lack advanced knowledge in the specific domain. This would offer a comparative framework to assess the impact of facilitator expertise on participant responses.</p> <p>Given the unexpected findings regarding serious game evaluation variables, there is a need to refine and expand the metrics used to assess engagement, playfulness and self‐reported learning. Future research should explore additional dimensions and incorporate a more comprehensive set of evaluation criteria to ensure a holistic understanding of the effectiveness of serious games in achieving knowledge acquisition outcomes.</p> <p>This study assumes that making children more knowledgeable about the environmental issues and management aspects of the urban water cycle will impact their awareness and behaviour. To assess long‐term behavioural impacts, future research should incorporate follow‐up assessments over an extended period, shedding light on how early exposure to environmental education through serious games translates into sustained pro‐environmental attitudes and actions in adulthood, thereby contributing to the development of more effective and lasting educational interventions.</p> <p>Furthermore, we consider it important to explore additional structural or contextual factors, such as prior knowledge levels and educational opportunities, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the influences on learning outcomes, especially in relation to socio‐economic backgrounds and gender. Recognizing the potential impact of these broader factors can contribute to a more nuanced interpretation of equality in learning outcomes and inform targeted interventions to address any existing disparities.</p> <p>Given the varied findings in the literature on the impact of collaborative gameplay on learning outcomes, future research should further investigate the dynamics of collaborative versus individual gameplay, particularly in the context of serious games. Exploring how different gameplay dynamics influence the effectiveness of educational tools like H2OeduK can provide valuable insights for optimizing learning experiences, with potential implications for instructional design and classroom practices.</p> <p>Finally, another significant limitation of this study is the lack of detailed demographic data beyond gender. While the research focused on the impact of the serious game intervention on educational outcomes, the absence of information, such as socio‐economic status and other demographic factors limits our ability to fully assess the generalizability of the findings. We chose not to collect these data to avoid potential ethical concerns and to facilitate approval from the ethics committee, given the sensitive nature of such information, especially when working with children. Future research should prioritize the collection of broader demographic data while carefully addressing ethical considerations, as this would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the intervention's effectiveness and enhance the robustness of the results' generalizability.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-15">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>This research paper contributes to current debates about the potential use of new learning environments, such as serious games to educate and raise awareness among children about complex urban sustainability challenges, specifically focusing on the functioning of the urban water cycle. The study results indicate that this serious game was effective in increasing students' knowledge about the urban water cycle. Encouragingly, the game's inclusiveness criteria were effective, as no statistical differences were observed with respect to gender. The study found that children playing H2OeduK individually had similar learning outcomes to those playing in pairs, adding new observations to the current debates about collaborative versus individual gameplay. Additionally, playing video games regularly also increased the learning gains with H2OeduK. However, the study revealed a discrepancy between participants' self‐assessed perceptions of their learning and their actual knowledge gains. This finding underscores the significance of utilizing knowledge surveys as a more reliable and objective measure to evaluate the effectiveness of the serious game in fostering learning outcomes. Overall, this study demonstrates the potential of serious games as a powerful tool to engage and educate young learners about important environmental concepts. Further research is needed to explore the long‐term impact of serious games on knowledge retention and behavioural change, and to continue improving their effectiveness in promoting sustainable development.</p> <p>Our future goal is to gather all the feedback obtained during the testing process of H2OeduK and make this educational resource accessible to a broader audience. Specifically, we aim to develop it further to function autonomously, providing the needed tools so schoolteachers can run the game‐based sessions, without the need for game facilitators. This involves creating a complete teaching unit that can support the use of this serious game. This approach will enable us to reach a larger number of school students and provide them with a free, enjoyable and engaging learning experience about one of the key urban sustainability challenges: the urban water cycle.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-16">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>We would like to express our gratitude to the ethics committee that approved the design of the school sessions, allowing us to conduct this research. We would also like to thank the Educational institutions in the Barcelona Schools + Sustainable Schools network, the principals and teachers of the four primary schools in Barcelona and Girona, who generously allowed us to carry out the serious game sessions with their students. We are indebted to the students and their families for their participation in this study and for providing their written consent. Finally, I would like to thank Mr Joan Saló for his help in reviewing the statistical analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-17">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>The study is within the frame of the SCOREwater project, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement no 820751. ICRA acknowledges the Economy and Knowledge Department of the Catalan Government through Consolidated Research Group ICRA tech (2021‐SGR‐01283), and funding from CERCA program (Generalitat de Catalunya). GILAB acknowledges Grant PID2019‐106426RB‐C31 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033B.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-18">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-19">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>In adherence to principles of transparency and collaborative research, the authors of this empirical research paper are committed to making their data available to interested parties. While the preferred avenue for data access is through an institutional or another designated repository, circumstances may arise where this is not feasible. The authors wish to emphasize that the availability of data upon request is a key criterion for evaluating the work, although its absence will not necessarily impede publication in the Journal. To request access to the anonymized data, interested parties are invited to contact the authors directly. Access conditions will be discussed on an individual basis to ensure ethical use and respect for privacy.</p> <hd id="AN0188606179-20">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>This research project has been conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the University of Girona (UdG) (ethical approval number: CEBRU0046‐21). In addition, parental or guardian consent was obtained for all participating students. This consent was obtained prior to the students' participation in the study and included a detailed explanation of the study's purpose, data collection methods, and potential risks and benefits of participation. By signing the consent form, parents or guardians affirmed their understanding of the study and their authorization for their child's participation. This process ensured that all students' involvement in the study was voluntary and aligned with the ethical principles of respecting individuals' rights and privacy.</p> <p>GRAPH: Data S1.</p> <ref id="AN0188606179-21"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref28" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alamri, A., Hassan, M. M., Hossain, M. A., Al‐Qurishi, M., Aldukhayyil, Y., & Hossain, M. S. (2014). Evaluating the impact of a cloud‐based serious game on obese people. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 468 – 475.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref7" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Appel, Y., Dimitrov, Y., Gnodde, S., van Heerden, N., Kools, P., Swaab, D., & Bidarra, R. (2019). A serious game to inform young citizens on canal water maintenance. In Games and Learning Alliance: 8th International Conference, GALA 2019, Athens, Greece, November 27–29, 2019, Proceedings 8 (pp. 394 – 403). Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref4" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram‐Goble, A., Zuiker, S. J., & Warren, S. (2009). Transformational play as a curricular scaffold: Using videogames to support science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 305 – 320.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref31" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed‐effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1 – 48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.b</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref35" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Chawla, L., & Derr, V. (2012). The development of conservation behaviors in childhood and youth. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 527 – 555). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref44" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chuang, T. Y., & Chen, W. F. (2007). Effect of computer‐based video games on children: An experimental study. In 2007 First IEEE International Workshop on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (DIGITEL'07) (pp. 114 – 118). IEEE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref3" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Damerell, P., Howe, C., & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. (2013). Child‐orientated environmental education influences adult knowledge and household behaviour. Environmental Research Letters, 8 (1), 015016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref13" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., Jessel, J. P., & Rampnoux, O. (2011). Origins of serious games. In D. Djaouti, J. Alvarez, J. P. Jessel, & O. Rampnoux (Eds.), Serious games and edutainment applications (pp. 25 – 43). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref22" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> dos Santos, A. D., Strada, F., & Bottino, A. (2018). Approaching sustainability learning via digital serious games. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12 (3), 303 – 320.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duvall, J., & Zint, M. (2007). A review of research on the effectiveness of environmental education in promoting intergenerational learning. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38 (4), 14 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraga‐Varela, F., Vila‐Couñago, E., & Rodríguez‐Groba, A. (2021). Serious games and mathematical fluency: A study from the gender perspective in primary education. Sustainability, 13 (12), 6586.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goh, D. H., Ang, R. P., & Tan, H. C. (2008). Strategies for designing effective psychotherapeutic gaming interventions for children and adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (5), 2217 – 2235.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> INE—Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (2022). Website of INE, Estadística experimental. https://<ulink href="http://www.ine.es/experimental/experimental.htm">www.ine.es/experimental/experimental.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Inkpen, K., Booth, K. S., Klawe, M., & Upitis, R. (1995). Playing together beats playing apart, especially for girls. Paper presented at the meeting of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning '95, Bloomington, IN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iten, N., & Petko, D. (2016). Learning with serious games: Is fun playing the game a predictor of learning success? British Journal of Educational Technology, 47 (1), 151 – 163.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaur, N., & Kaur, M. (2022). Role of technology for equality, diversity and inclusivity. International Journal of Information Technology & Computer Engineering (IJITC), 2 (1), 19 – 29. https://doi.org/10.55529/ijitc.21.19.29</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khelifa, R., & Mahdjoub, H. (2021). EcoDragons: a game for environmental education and public outreach. Insects, 12 (9), 776.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liarakou, G., Sakka, E., Gavrilakis, C., & Tsolakidis, C. (2012). Evaluation of serious games, as a tool for education for sustainable development. European Journal of Open, Distance and E‐learning, 15 (2).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liefländer, A. K., Bogner, F. X., Kibbe, A., & Kaiser, F. G. (2015). Evaluating environmental knowledge dimension convergence to assess educational programme effectiveness. International Journal of Science Education, 37 (4), 684 – 702.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCarroll, M., & Hamann, H. (2020). What we know about water: A water literacy review. Water, 12 (10), 2803.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moizer, J., Lean, J., Dell'Aquila, E., Walsh, P., Keary, A. A., O'Byrne, D., Di Ferdinando, A., Miglino, O., Friedrich, R., Asperges, R., & Sica, L. S. (2019). An approach to evaluating the user experience of serious games. Computers & Education, 136, 141 – 151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunes, E. P., Luz, A. R., Lemos, E. M., Maciel, C., dos Anjos, A. M., Borges, L. C., & Nunes, C. (2016). Mobile serious game proposal for environmental awareness of children. In 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1 – 8). IEEE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ouariachi, T., Olvera‐Lobo, M. D., & Gutiérrez‐Pérez, J. (2019). Serious games and sustainability. In Encyclopedia of sustainability in higher education (pp. 1450 – 1458). Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Panagiotopoulou, L., Cía Gayarre, N., Scurati, G. W., Etzi, R., Massetti, G., Gallace, A., & Ferrise, F. (2021). Design of a serious game for children to raise awareness on plastic pollution and promoting pro‐environmental behaviors. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 21 (6), 064502. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4050291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> RStudio Team. (2024). RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio, PBC. <ulink href="http://www.posit.co/">http://www.posit.co/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saitua‐Iribar, A., Corral‐Lage, J., & Peña‐Miguel, N. (2020). Improving knowledge about the sustainable development goals through a collaborative learning methodology and serious game. Sustainability, 12 (15), 6169.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Satorras, M., Domene, E., Chesa, M. J., & Corominas, L. (2022). Public awareness campaign guideline to avoid unflushables, fats, oils and grease (FOG), and other improper waste entering wastewater systems [Deliverable 4.9, SCOREwater project]. https://scorewater.eu/download/SCORewater_D4.9_PublicAwarenessCampaignGuideline.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stratton, S. J. (2019). Quasi‐experimental design (pre‐test and post‐test studies) in prehospital and disaster research. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 34 (6), 573 – 574.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan, C. K., & Nurul‐Asna, H. (2023). Serious games for environmental education. Integrative Conservation, 2 (1), 19 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unity [Computer software]. (2023). https://unity.com/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Meij, H., Albers, E., & Leemkuil, H. (2011). Learning from games: Does collaboration help? British Journal of Educational Technology, 42 (4), 655 – 664.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veronica, R., & Calvano, G. (2020). Promoting sustainable behavior using serious games: SeAdventure for ocean literacy. IEEE Access, 8, 196931 – 196939.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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, 229 – 243.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Worth, N. C., & Book, A. S. (2015). Dimensions of video game behavior and their relationships with personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 132 – 140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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 – 265.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yanti, P. P., Rosmansyah, Y., & Dabarsyah, B. (2019). Serious games for children: A systematic literature review. In 2019 International Conference on Informatics, Multimedia, Cyber and Information System (ICIMCIS) (pp. 79 – 84). IEEE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yap, K. Y. L., Tan, S. I. B. H., & Yap, K. Z. (2021). Students' perceptions of an in‐house developed multiplayer online role‐playing serious game for learning of 21st century skills—A cross sectional study. International Journal of Digital Health, 1 (1), 6.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Xavier Garcia; Elena Domene; Xabier Goenaga; Antonio Rodriguez‐Benitez; Mar Satorras; Vicenç Acuña; Ariadna Martínez‐Ruiz; Imma Boada and Lluís Corominas</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref46"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1486313
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Serious Game to Educate Children about the Urban Water Cycle
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xavier+Garcia%22">Xavier Garcia</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1789-7403">0000-0002-1789-7403</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elena+Domene%22">Elena Domene</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xabier+Goenaga%22">Xabier Goenaga</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Antonio+Rodriguez-Benitez%22">Antonio Rodriguez-Benitez</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mar+Satorras%22">Mar Satorras</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vicenç+Acuña%22">Vicenç Acuña</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ariadna+Martínez-Ruiz%22">Ariadna Martínez-Ruiz</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Imma+Boada%22">Imma Boada</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0001-8193">0000-0002-0001-8193</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lluís+Corominas%22">Lluís Corominas</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Technology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Technology</i></searchLink>. 2025 56(6):2367-2386.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Games%22">Educational Games</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Water%22">Water</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Areas%22">Urban Areas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Natural+Resources%22">Natural Resources</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Games%22">Video Games</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Play%22">Play</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+Education%22">Environmental Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjet.13578
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-1013<br />1467-8535
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Serious games combine education and entertainment to create engaging and effective learning experiences, potentially contributing to science literacy and environmental awareness. This research aims to investigate the effectiveness of a particular serious game, H2OeduK, in educating children aged 10 to 11 years on the urban water cycle. Specifically, a study was conducted in four schools, where 140 students played the game and completed pre- and post-game surveys to assess knowledge acquisition and the influence of specific socio-demographic and gaming contextual factors. The relationship between the serious game evaluation and the knowledge acquisition scores was also explored. Results indicate that playing H2OeduK significantly enhanced children's understanding of the urban water cycle, establishing it as an effective tool for promoting water literacy and encouraging the protection of water resources. Neither gender nor play mode (individual or pair play) appeared to affect the game's effectiveness, while engaging in video gameplay positively impacted knowledge acquisition. Participants' evaluation of the game in terms of gamer experience (engagement, playfulness and self-reported learning) did not seem to correlate with the level of learning achieved. Overall, this study underscores the potential of serious games like H2OeduK to effectively educate young learners on key sustainability challenges.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1486313
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1486313
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjet.13578
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 2367
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Games
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Water
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Urban Areas
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Natural Resources
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Games
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Play
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Environmental Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Serious Game to Educate Children about the Urban Water Cycle
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xavier Garcia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elena Domene
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xabier Goenaga
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Antonio Rodriguez-Benitez
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mar Satorras
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vicenç Acuña
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ariadna Martínez-Ruiz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Imma Boada
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lluís Corominas
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-1013
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-8535
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Technology
              Type: main
ResultId 1