Skip to main content

Quest-Based Learning: A Scoping Review of the Research Literature

Abstract

Quest-based learning (QBL) is a choice-driven approach that integrates game elements in a gamified or game-based learning environment. A scoping review of the research literature was conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of the QBL research activity, how the approach has been used in educational practice and what benefits or disadvantages have been reported. A sample of 17 journal articles and papers published from 2009 through 2020 were reviewed. Researchers studied the feasibility of implementing QBL in real-world learning environments (e.g., classrooms), how to design the quest structure or framework and how motivation is influenced by the choice-driven system of QBL. Benefits reported in the research include positive student response to the approach, flexible learning paths and options to revise and improve work. Disadvantages include mixed results for motivation, substantial time investment for teachers and challenges for students that include issues with time management, frustration with QBL design, limited social interaction and mixed perceptions of the merits of game elements in QBL design.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

*Articles and papers sampled for the scoping review are marked with an asterisk.

  1. Aarseth, E. (2004). Quest games as post-narrative discourse. In M.-L. Ryan (Ed.), Narrative across media: The languages of storytelling. University of Nebraska Press.

  2. Aarseth, E. (2005). From hunt the Wumpus to EverQuest: Introduction to Quest Theory. In: F. Kishino, Y. Kitamura, H. Kato, N. Nagata (eds), Entertainment Computing - ICEC 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 3711 (pp. 496–506). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11558651_48.

  3. Abdul Jabbar, A. I., & Felicia, P. (2015). Gameplay engagement and learning in game-based learning. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 740–779. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315577210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.

  5. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Armstrong, R., Hall, B. J., Doyle, J., & Waters, E. (2011). “Scoping the scope” of a Cochrane review. Journal of Public Health, 33(1), 147–150. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdr015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. *Beasley, N., Sharma, S., Shegog, R., Huber, R., Abernathy, P., Smith, C., & Hoelscher, D. (2012). The quest to lava mountain: Using video games for dietary change in children. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112(9), 1334–1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2012.05.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. *Beaudin, L., & Ratther, O. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ responses to quest-based learning in a mandatory communication technology course. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2018 (p.p. 382–385). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/185311.

  9. Betts, A. L., Fabienke, N., & Farber, M. (2021). The quest for learning: Promoting engagement and disciplinary literacy through game-based quests. In L. Haas & J. Tussey (Eds.), Disciplinary literacy connections to popular culture in K-12 settings (pp. 203–230). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4721-2.ch010.

  10. Center for Self-Determination Theory. (n.d.). Intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI). https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/.

  11. Chaos Media. (2011). The Quest to Lava Mountain [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/QnY7Y_EuUo4.

  12. *Chen, Z. H., Tseng, Y. F., Liao, C. C. Y., Wang, J. H., & Chan, T. W. (2009). My-pet-my-quest: Utilizing game quests to scaffold students’ goal setting for learning. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2009 (pp. 733–737). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.497.6358.

  13. *Chen, Z.-H., Liao, C. C. Y., & Chan, T.-W. (2010). Quest island: Developing quest-driven learning model by blending learning tasks with game quests in a virtual world. In 2010 Third IEEE International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (p.p. 93–100). https://doi.org/10.1109/DIGITEL.2010.52.

  14. *Chen, Z. H., Liao, C. C. Y., Cheng, H. N. H., Yeh, C. Y. C., & Chan, T. W. (2012). Influence of game quests on pupils’ enjoyment and goal-pursuing in math learning. Educational Technology and Society, 15(2), 317–327. https://www.j-ets.net/collection/published-issues/15_2.

  15. Chen, Z.-H., Chen, H. H.-J., & Dai, W.-J. (2018). Using narrative-based contextual games to enhance language learning: A case study. Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 186–198. https://www.j-ets.net/collection/published-issues/21_3.

  16. Chernova, N. I., & Mandzhiev, A. A. (2019). Using chat-bots for managing quest-based modular training of engineering students. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Far East Con” (ISCFEC 2018) (pp. 376–379). https://doi.org/10.2991/iscfec-18.2019.96.

  17. Clarivate. (n.d.). EndNote [Computer software]. Clarivate. https://access.clarivate.com/login?app=endnote.

  18. Coelho, A., Rodrigues, R., Nóbrega, R., Jacob, J., Morgado, L., Cardoso, P., van Zeller, M., Santos, L., & Sousa, A. A. (2020). Serious pervasive games. Frontiers in Computer Science, 2, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2020.00030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O’Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., Kastner, M., & Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(12), 1291–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dickey, M. D. (2007). Game design and learning: A conjectural analysis of how massively multiple online role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9004-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. *Dickey, M. (2020). “The quest” narrative for K12 game-based Learning: A case study of using “the quest” as a model for game-based learning design for K12 teachers. In D. Schmidt-Crawford (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2020 (pp. 550–557). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/215796.

  22. *Dikkers, S. M. (2016). Questing as learning: Iterative course design using game inspired elements. On the Horizon, 24(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-11-2015-0068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fabricatore, C., & López, X. (2014). Using gameplay patterns to gamify learning experiences. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 110–117). http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/22100/.

  24. Farber, M. (2018). Using quests in project-based learning. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/using-quests-project-based-learning.

  25. Finseth, C. (2018). Teach like a gamer: Adapting the instructional design of digital role-playing games. McFarland & Company.

  26. Haskell, C. (2012). Design variables of attraction in quest-based learning [Doctoral dissertation, Boise State University]. https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/td/285/.

  27. Haskell, C. (2013). 3D GameLab: Quest-based pre-service teacher education. In Y. Baek & N. Whitton (Eds.), Cases on digital game-based learning (pp. 302–340). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-2848-9.ch016.

  28. Howard, J. (2008). Quests: Design, theory, and history in games and narratives. Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Howard, J. (2006). Designing interpretative quests in the literature classroom. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Videogames (pp. 133–138). https://doi.org/10.1145/1183316.1183335.

  30. Huang, R., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Sommer, M., Zhu, J., Stephen, A., Valle, N., Hampton, J., & Li, J. (2020). The impact of gamification in educational settings on student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1875–1901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09807-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. *Jost, P. (2020). The quest game-frame: balancing serious games for investigating privacy decisions. In 11th Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems (SCIS) (pp. 1–17). https://aisel.aisnet.org/scis2020/5/.

  32. Joye, S. (2014). Rezzly review for teachers. Common Sense Education. https://www.commonsense.org/education/website/rezzly.

  33. Kalmpourtzis, G. (2019). Educational game design fundamentals: A journey to creating intrinsically motivating learning experiences. CRC Press.

  34. Kellinger, J. J. (2017). A guide to designing curriculum games: How to “game” the system. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. King, C., Dordel, J., Krzic, M., & Simard, S. W. (2014). Integrating a mobile-based gaming application into a postsecondary forest ecology course. Natural Sciences Education, 43(1), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2014.02.0004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. *Kingsley, T. L., & Grabner-Hagen, M. M. (2015). Gamification: Questing to integrate content knowledge, literacy, and 21st-century learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. *Kursevich, D. V., Chernova, N. I., & Mandzhiev, A. A. (2020). Cross-cultural challenges of a foreign language quest. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Far East Con” (ISCFEC 2020)(pp. 133–137). https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200312.019.

  38. *Lambert, J. (2017). Differences in student motivation and orientation between quest-based and traditional college-level courses. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2017 (pp. 1685–1688). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/177930.

  39. *Lambert, J., & Ennis, J. (2014). Quest-based learning: A new approach to preservice teacher technology instruction. In M. Searson & M. N. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2014 (pp. 2895–2900). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/131240.

  40. *Lambert, J., Gong, Y., & Harrison, R. (2015). A study of motivation in a quest-based learning environment. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2015 (pp. 127–132). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/149978.

  41. *Lambert, J., Gong, Y., & Harrison, R. (2016). Autonomous, self-paced quest-based learning: Is it more motivating than traditional course instruction? In G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2016 (pp. 2144–2149). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/171988.

  42. Larson, M. B., & Lockee, B. B. (2019). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design (2nd ed.). Routledge.

  43. *Lee, J., & Chao, C.-Y. (2009). The effects of quest types and gaming motivations on players’ knowledge acquisitions in an online role-playing game environment. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 353–358). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02583-9_39.

  44. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mendeley. (n.d.). Mendeley [Computer software]. https://www.mendeley.com/.

  46. O’Neill, M., Booth, S., & Lamb, J. (2018). Using NVivo for literature reviews: The eight step pedagogy (N7+1). The Qualitative Report, 23(13), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ofosu-Ampong, K. (2020). The shift to gamification in education: A review on dominant issues. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 113–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520917629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. *Perry, B. (2015). Gamifying French language learning: A case study examining a quest-based, augmented reality mobile learning-tool. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2308–2315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. QSR International. (2021). NVivo R1 for Windows [Computer software]. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home/.

  51. Raffone, A., Francesco, S., Sabina, M., & Monti, J. (2019). Phrasal-Quest: Designing a game-based storytelling approach to teach English verbal multi-word expressions. In The Future of Education 2019. https://unora.unior.it/retrieve/handle/11574/188218/61189/5261-ILL3981-FP-FOE9.pdf.

  52. Rigby, S., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). Glued to games: How video games draw us in and hold us spellbound. Praeger.

  53. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE.

  55. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer Publishing Company, Inc.

  56. Smith, G., Anderson, R., Kopleck, B., Lindblad, Z., Scott, L., Wardell, A., Whitehead, J., & Mateas, M. (2011). Situating quests: Design patterns for quest and level design in role-playing games. In Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 7069, pp. 326–329). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25289-1_40.

  57. Sullivan, A., Grow, A., Mateas, M., & Wardrip-Fruin, N. (2012). The design of Mismanor: Creating a playable quest-based story game. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 180 - 187). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2282338.2282374.

  58. Susaeta, H., Jimenez, F., Nussbaum, M., Gajardo, I., Andreu, J. J., & Villalta, M. (2010). From MMORPG to a classroom multiplayer presential role playing game. Educational Technology and Society, 13(3), 257–269. https://www.j-ets.net/collection/published-issues/13_3.

  59. Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.1227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–485. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.

  61. Vogler, C. (1998). The writer's journey: Mythic structures for writers (3rd edition). Michael Wiese Productions.

  62. Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2020). For the win: The power of gamification and game thinking in business, education, government, and social impact (Revised ed.). Wharton School Press.

  63. Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(6), 772–775. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. *Yilmaz, M., Saran, M., & O’Connor, R. (2014). Towards a quest-based contextualization process for game-based learning. In C. Busch (Ed.), In 8th European Conference on Games Based Learning (Vol. 2, pp. 645–651). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited. http://doras.dcu.ie/20337/.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chareen Snelson.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This study did not involve human participants or animals.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was not applicable in this literature review study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of Interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Snelson, C. Quest-Based Learning: A Scoping Review of the Research Literature. TechTrends (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00674-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gamification
  • Game-based learning
  • Quest-based learning
  • Literature review
  • Scoping review