Agentic education · Learning science

Actionable companion · Motivation & engagement

Learning with agency: Analogue Play in the Age of AI: A Scoping Review of Non-Digital Games as Active Learning Strategies in Higher Education

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not claims or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.

Read original paperSearch paper agentCC BY 4.0

Evidence and context

Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Higher education. Verify the participant population and task before transferring the findings.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Non-digital traditional games such as board and card formats are increasingly recognised as valuable tools for active learning in higher education. These analogue approaches promote engagement, collaboration, and conceptual understanding through embodied and social interaction. This scoping review mapped research on the use of traditional, non-digital games as active learning strategies in tertiary education and examined whether the rise in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) since 2022 has influenced their pedagogical role. Following the PRISMA-ScR framework, a systematic search of Scopus (October 2025) identified 2480 records; after screening, 26 studies met all inclusion criteria (explicitly using card and/or board games). Whilst this was a scoping, not a systematic review, some bias due to using only one database and evidence could have missed some studies. Results analysed the use and impacts of the games and whether AI was a specific driver in its use. Studies spanned STEM, business, health, and social sciences, with board and card games most frequently employed to support engagement, understanding, and collaboration. Most reported positive learning outcomes. Post-2023 publications suggest renewed interest in analogue pedagogies as authentic, human-centred responses to AI-mediated education. While none directly investigated GenAI, its emergence appears to have acted as an indirect catalyst, highlighting the continuing importance of tactile, cooperative learning experiences. Analogue games therefore remain a resilient, adaptable form of active learning that complements technological innovation and sustains the human dimensions of higher-education practice.

What kind of evidence is this?

Supporting AI learning science · Evidence synthesis

Stage: Higher education. Screening labels describe reported context and study-design language. They are not a risk-of-bias rating or proof of effectiveness for an age band.

Study methods · source passage

Coding was iterative. Descriptive frequency analysis was used to summarise disciplines, game modalities, and outcome categories. Temporal grouping distinguished pre-GenAI (2010–2022) and post-GenAI (2023–2025) studies to identify potential shifts in analogue pedagogy emphasis.

Limitations and uncertainty · source passage

While the scoping review corpus was derived from a predefined Scopus search strategy (selected due to its multidisciplinary coverage), additional literature indexed in ERIC and Web of Science was consulted to strengthen the conceptual framing and discussion, and to reduce some potential bias. The focus on English-language publications may underrepresent work in non-English contexts. As a scoping rather than a systematic review, no formal quality appraisal was performed. Nevertheless, the transparent search strategy, explicit inclusion criteria, and structured data-charting process provide a robust mapping of current scholarship on non-digital game-based learning in higher education.

Design the system before the pilot

Use this study to inform a learning mechanism or implementation question. It is not direct evidence that autonomous agents improve learning. Keep the proposed agent behavior separate from what the source actually tested.

  • Measure engagement separately from achievement. Check whether novelty-driven participation persists and whether it translates to independent performance.
  • Co-design accommodations with learners and specialists. Check access and error burden across groups without inferring subgroup effectiveness from small or unreported samples.

A 90-day district pilot

  1. Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
  2. Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one disciplinary task. Require a first attempt, a documented AI consultation, a critique of the output and an independent explanation. Align the comparison group and scoring rubric with the same objective. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
  3. Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
  4. Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning and accuracy on a new task without AI. Distinguish model examination scores, student perceptions and actual learner gains; only the last directly tests educational benefit. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Elaine Conway; Ruth Smith. Analogue Play in the Age of AI: A Scoping Review of Non-Digital Games as Active Learning Strategies in Higher Education. Behavioral Sciences (2026-01-16). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16010133

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.