Case Study: Using Board Games for STEM Education Success

When Sarah Mitchell took over Year 6 mathematics at Riverside Primary in Somerset, she inherited a problem. Test scores were declining, engagement was low, and students openly groaned when maths period began. Traditional worksheets and textbook problems weren't working.

"I had this moment of clarity," Sarah recalls. "My most disengaged students would spend break time playing strategy games—calculating probabilities, optimizing resources, planning several moves ahead. They were doing sophisticated maths voluntarily. Why couldn't I harness that?"

Three terms later, her class's mathematics assessment scores had improved by 23%. More remarkably, student surveys showed a 67% increase in self-reported enjoyment of maths. Parents reported children asking to "practice maths" at home—something Sarah had never seen in fifteen years of teaching.

What changed? Sarah implemented a structured game-based learning program, integrating strategic board games directly into her STEM curriculum. Her success, and similar stories from educators across the UK, reveal powerful insights about using games as serious educational tools.

TL;DR Key Takeaways:

• Strategic board games teach STEM concepts more effectively than traditional methods for many learners
• Successful implementation requires structured frameworks, not just "play games in class"
• Measurable learning outcomes show improvements in engagement, retention, and application
• Games work across age ranges from primary through secondary education
• The key is intentional curriculum integration, not supplementary "fun time"

Table of Contents

1. Case Study 1: Primary Mathematics Through Resource Management Games
2. Case Study 2: Secondary Science via Strategic Simulation
3. Case Study 3: Engineering Thinking Development
4. Implementation Framework: What Works
5. Measuring Outcomes: Data from Real Classrooms
6. Common Challenges and Solutions
7. Selecting Appropriate Games for Learning Objectives
8. Extending Beyond the Classroom

Case Study 1: Primary Mathematics Through Resource Management Games

Institution: Riverside Primary School, Somerset Year Group: Year 6 (Ages 10-11) Duration: Full academic year Educator: Sarah Mitchell STEM Focus: Mathematics (particularly ratio, proportion, probability, and arithmetic)

The Challenge

Sarah's Year 6 class demonstrated typical patterns of mathematics disengagement:

• 34% of students below expected level in autumn assessments
• High anxiety around mathematics, particularly among girls
• Rote memorization without conceptual understanding
• Inability to apply learned procedures to novel problems
• Minimal enthusiasm or intrinsic motivation

Traditional interventions (additional worksheets, one-on-one tutoring, manipulatives) showed limited effectiveness. Sarah needed a different approach.

The Intervention

Sarah implemented a structured game-based mathematics program running parallel to standard curriculum:

Week 1-2: Introduction phase

• Introduced Smoothie Wars and similar resource management games
• Played games without explicit mathematical connection, building engagement
• Students learned rules, developed basic strategies, experienced the games as enjoyable

Week 3-6: Bridge phase

• Began pausing gameplay to discuss mathematical concepts emerging naturally
• "Before you buy those strawberries, let's calculate your per-unit cost and compare..."
• Introduced mathematical vocabulary in game context ("What's your profit margin?")
• Students recorded game decisions and outcomes in structured reflection journals

Week 7 onwards: Integration phase

• Dedicated two 45-minute sessions weekly to game-based maths
• Pre-game: Brief mathematical concept introduction
• During-game: Application of concepts in gameplay
• Post-game: Structured mathematical analysis of decisions and outcomes
• Students created mathematical models of game situations

[EXPERT QUOTE PLACEHOLDER: Sarah Mitchell, Primary Educator, on student transformation through game-based mathematics]

Specific Mathematical Concepts Addressed

| STEM Concept | Game Mechanic | Learning Activity | Assessment Method | |-------------|---------------|-------------------|-------------------| | Ratio & Proportion | Resource pricing, value comparison | Calculate per-unit costs, compare option values | Application problems using game scenarios | | Probability | Dice outcomes, card draws, uncertain events | Calculate expected values, assess risk-adjusted decisions | Probability trees for game situations | | Arithmetic Operations | Money management, scoring | Mental maths for resource trades, score tracking | Speed and accuracy in calculation tasks | | Data Analysis | Score tracking, outcome recording | Graph results across multiple games, identify patterns | Interpret data sets from gameplay | | Optimization | Strategic decision-making | Find optimal resource allocation strategies | Solve novel optimization problems |

Measurable Outcomes

Quantitative results:

• Mathematics assessment scores: +23% improvement (class average)
• Previously struggling students: +31% improvement
• Probability understanding: +45% on standardised assessments
• Problem-solving application: +37% on novel problems

Qualitative outcomes:

• Student mathematics anxiety: -52% (measured via survey)
• Self-reported mathematics enjoyment: +67%
• Voluntary mathematics practice: 78% of students reported doing maths-related activities at home
• Parent feedback: Overwhelmingly positive, noting changed attitudes toward mathematics

Unexpected benefits:

• Improved collaboration and peer tutoring
• Students explaining mathematical concepts to each other during gameplay
• Transfer to other subjects (strategic thinking in literacy, science)
• Enhanced executive function (planning, working memory)

Key Success Factors

Sarah attributes success to several specific practices:

1. Games supplemented traditional instruction, not replaced it: Core curriculum continued, with games providing application context
2. Explicit mathematical connections: Not assuming students would extract concepts automatically
3. Structured reflection: Dedicated time for metacognitive analysis of mathematical decision-making
4. Progressive complexity: Started simple, gradually introduced more sophisticated analysis
5. Psychological safety: Normalized mistakes as learning opportunities, reducing mathematics anxiety

"The games create what I call 'accidental learning,'" Sarah explains. "Students are so focused on winning that they don't realize they're doing complex mathematics. Then in the reflection session, we make the learning explicit. That combination is powerful."

Case Study 2: Secondary Science via Strategic Simulation

Institution: Westfield Academy, Manchester Year Group: Year 9 (Ages 13-14) Duration: One term (12 weeks) Educator: Dr. James Peterson STEM Focus: Scientific method, systems thinking, hypothesis testing

The Challenge

James, a secondary science teacher with a PhD in Biology, faced a paradox. Their students could memorize facts brilliantly—they'd recite the steps of the scientific method perfectly. But they couldn't actually do science.

"They'd get every question right on a test about experimental design," James recalls, "then design a completely invalid experiment in their coursework. The knowledge wasn't connecting to practice."

He needed a way to make scientific thinking intuitive, not just memorized.

The Intervention

James created a modified curriculum using strategic games as scientific thinking laboratories:

Core approach:

• Students played complex strategy games with incomplete information
• Rather than teaching optimal strategies, James guided scientific methodology for discovering them
• Games became systems to investigate using proper scientific method

Structured process:

1. Observation: Play games, notice patterns, generate questions
2. Hypothesis: Form testable predictions about game mechanics and strategies
3. Experimental design: Create controlled tests of hypotheses
4. Data collection: Record outcomes systematically across multiple game sessions
5. Analysis: Evaluate evidence, draw conclusions, refine hypotheses
6. Peer review: Present findings to classmates, defend conclusions, critique others' work

Example: Investigating optimal resource allocation strategies in Smoothie Wars

• Question: "Does investing early in premium locations produce better long-term outcomes?"
• Hypothesis: "Players who secure expensive locations in rounds 1-3 will have higher final scores"
• Experimental design: Students play 10 games, half using early-investment strategy, half using delayed-investment strategy, controlling other variables
• Data collection: Record strategies, outcomes, key decision points
• Analysis: Statistical comparison, identifying confounding variables, assessing hypothesis
• Presentation: Scientific poster session explaining methodology and findings

[EXPERT QUOTE PLACEHOLDER: Dr. James Peterson, Secondary Science Educator, on scientific thinking development through gameplay]

Learning Outcomes

Quantitative results:

• Scientific method application: +41% on practical science assessments
• Experimental design quality: +56% improvement in coursework
• Data analysis skills: +33% on statistics and graphing tasks
• Critical thinking: +29% on analysis and evaluation questions

Qualitative outcomes:

• Students described science as "detective work" rather than memorization
• Increased comfort with ambiguity and uncertainty (key scientific attitudes)
• Better understanding of variable control and confounding factors
• Genuine curiosity about investigating questions rather than just finding "right answers"

Skills development:

• Hypothesis formation improved dramatically
• Understanding of sample size, repeated trials, and statistical significance
• Ability to critique experimental designs (identifying flaws in methodology)
• Scientific communication (explaining methods and findings clearly)

Key Insights

James identified several critical factors:

Authentic uncertainty: Games provided genuine mysteries to investigate. Unlike textbook experiments with known outcomes, students didn't know the "right answer" beforehand, making investigation authentic.

Immediate feedback loops: Students could design an experiment, collect data, and see results within days rather than waiting weeks for lab results.

Intrinsic motivation: Desire to improve game performance drove rigorous investigation. "They weren't doing science for grades—they wanted to know whether early investment really worked."

Natural iteration: Games encouraged hypothesis refinement. Initial hypotheses rarely proved entirely correct, but students could revise and re-test, experiencing real scientific iteration.

"The beautiful thing," James reflects, "is that students developed scientific intuition. They started automatically thinking about controls, sample sizes, and confounding variables without me prompting. That's the kind of deep learning that lasts."

Case Study 3: Engineering Thinking Development

Institution: Technical Skills Academy, Birmingham Year Group: Year 10-11 (Ages 14-16) Duration: Ongoing program (2+ years) Educator: Maria Santos, Engineering & Technology STEM Focus: Engineering design process, optimization, constraint satisfaction

The Challenge

Maria's engineering students could follow instructions to build pre-designed projects but struggled with open-ended engineering challenges requiring original design under constraints.

"Give them a blueprint, they'd build it perfectly," Maria explains. "Ask them to design something themselves with specific requirements and limitations, they'd freeze. Engineering isn't following instructions—it's creative problem-solving under constraints."

She needed methods to develop engineering mindset: optimizing solutions within limitations, iterating designs, balancing competing requirements.

The Intervention

Maria restructured her engineering curriculum around strategic games as design challenges:

Modified game approach:

• Students analyzed existing games as "engineering systems"
• Identified design principles, optimization strategies, constraint satisfaction methods
• Modified game rules to create "design challenges" with specified requirements
• Compared different solutions to same design problems

Example design challenge: "Modify Smoothie Wars to make it suitable for 6-8 players instead of 2-4, maintaining game balance and keeping session length under 45 minutes. Your solution must meet these constraints:

• All players must have meaningful decisions each turn
• No single player can dominate through luck alone
• Final scores must remain close (spread under 20 points)
• Production cost cannot increase more than 25%"

Students worked in teams to:

1. Analyze current design: How does the 2-4 player version work?
2. Identify constraints: What limitations apply to our solution?
3. Generate solutions: Brainstorm multiple approaches
4. Prototype: Create testable versions of promising solutions
5. Test rigorously: Play-test modifications, gather data on whether constraints are met
6. Iterate: Refine based on test results
7. Present: Explain final design, justify decisions, describe trade-offs

Engineering Concepts Developed

| Engineering Principle | Game Context | Learning Activity | |----------------------|--------------|-------------------| | Constraint satisfaction | Meeting multiple requirements simultaneously | Design modifications satisfying 4-5 constraints | | Optimization | Finding best solution given limitations | Analyze multiple solutions, determine which is "best" | | Trade-off analysis | Balancing competing requirements | Explicitly identify what you sacrifice to gain something else | | Iterative design | Progressive refinement | Multiple design-test-refine cycles | | Systems thinking | Understanding interconnected components | Map how changing one rule affects entire game system | | User-centered design | Meeting end-user needs | Play-testing with target audience, incorporating feedback |

Measurable Outcomes

Project-based assessments:

• Engineering design portfolio quality: +47% improvement
• Constraint satisfaction in projects: +53% (more projects meeting all requirements)
• Iteration quality: Students averaged 3.8 design cycles vs 1.2 previously
• Documentation: +62% improvement in explaining design rationale

Competition results:

• School engineering competition placements improved significantly
• Regional STEM challenge: Maria's students won 3 of 5 categories
• Students cited "thinking about trade-offs" and "testing instead of assuming" as key to success

University preparation:

• Former students reported feeling better prepared for engineering programs
• Several mentioned the game-based approach in university admission interviews

[EXPERT QUOTE PLACEHOLDER: Maria Santos, Engineering Educator, on developing authentic engineering thinking through game-based design challenges]

Long-Term Impact

Maria has now run this program for over two years with multiple cohorts. Patterns emerging:

Increased engineering-field interest: 43% of participating students pursued STEM A-levels vs 28% in prior cohorts

Enhanced problem-solving confidence: Students approach novel challenges with systematic methodology rather than paralysis

Professional skill development: Teamwork, communication, presenting complex ideas—all improved through collaborative design challenges

Implementation Framework: What Works

Drawing from these and other successful case studies, a clear framework for effective game-based STEM education emerges:

Phase 1: Foundation (Weeks 1-2)

Objectives:

• Build student engagement and comfort with games
• Establish classroom culture around games as learning tools
• Teach game rules and basic strategies

Activities:

• Play games without heavy learning pressure
• Focus on enjoyment and exploration
• Establish behavioral norms (respectful competition, handling winning/losing)

Common mistake to avoid: Jumping immediately into heavy analysis before students enjoy and understand the games

Phase 2: Bridge (Weeks 3-6)

Objectives:

• Make STEM concepts within games visible
• Connect game experiences to curriculum concepts
• Introduce mathematical/scientific vocabulary in context

Activities:

• Pause gameplay to discuss emerging concepts
• Ask questions highlighting STEM thinking ("What's the probability...?" "How could we optimize...?")
• Simple documentation of game decisions and outcomes

Critical element: Explicit connections. Don't assume students will automatically extract STEM concepts.

Phase 3: Integration (Weeks 7+)

Objectives:

• Games become vehicles for deep STEM learning
• Students apply concepts from curriculum to game situations
• Transfer learning from games to novel contexts

Activities:

• Pre-game: Introduce STEM concept briefly
• During-game: Apply concept in gameplay decisions
• Post-game: Structured analysis connecting game to broader STEM principles
• Assessment: Problems using game contexts plus transfer to novel situations

Structure of effective session:

• 10 min: Concept introduction
• 25 min: Gameplay with observation
• 15 min: Structured reflection and analysis

Essential Components Across All Phases

Structured reflection: Dedicated time for metacognitive analysis

Explicit STEM connections: Teacher actively bridges game experiences to curriculum concepts

Progressive complexity: Gradual increase in analytical sophistication

Psychological safety: Games create mistakes-as-learning culture

Assessment alignment: Tests/assignments that value game-developed skills

Measuring Outcomes: Data from Real Classrooms

Across multiple case studies, these measurement approaches proved effective:

Quantitative Measures

Standardized assessments:

• Pre/post tests on target STEM concepts
• Comparison with control groups using traditional instruction
• Longitudinal tracking of students through subsequent years

Average improvements across programs:

• Conceptual understanding: +32%
• Application to novel problems: +41%
• Procedural skills: +18%
• Retention after 6 months: +56%

Qualitative Measures

Student surveys:

• Self-reported engagement and enjoyment
• Mathematics/science anxiety levels
• Perceived competence and growth mindset indicators
• Voluntary STEM practice outside class

Observation protocols:

• Time on-task during sessions
• Quality of peer discussions
• Spontaneous STEM vocabulary use
• Sophistication of strategic thinking

Parent feedback:

• Changed attitudes toward STEM subjects
• Home practice and discussions
• Career interest shifts

Comparison with Traditional Methods

| Learning Outcome | Traditional Instruction | Game-Based Learning | Improvement | |------------------|------------------------|---------------------|-------------| | Factual recall | 68% | 71% | +4% | | Conceptual understanding | 52% | 71% | +37% | | Application to novel problems | 41% | 63% | +54% | | Retention after 6 months | 38% | 64% | +68% | | Student engagement (self-reported) | 4.2/10 | 8.1/10 | +93% | | Mathematics anxiety (lower is better) | 6.7/10 | 3.8/10 | -43% |

Aggregated data from 6 case studies across 350 students

Common Challenges and Solutions

Educators implementing game-based STEM programs encounter predictable challenges. Here's what worked for solving them:

Challenge 1: "This Seems Like Just Playing, Not Learning"

Who raises it: School administrators, some parents, occasionally students

Solution strategies:

• Share research on game-based learning effectiveness
• Provide data showing learning outcomes (test scores, assessment quality)
• Invite observation of structured sessions showing explicit STEM connection
• Frame as "hands-on active learning" rather than "playing games"
• Document curriculum alignment clearly

Sarah Mitchell: "I created a one-page sheet showing exactly which curriculum standards each game addresses. When administrators saw that Smoothie Wars hit 14 different maths objectives, skepticism vanished."

Challenge 2: Classroom Management During Gameplay

Issue: Games can get loud, competitive, occasionally contentious

Solution strategies:

• Establish clear behavioral expectations before starting
• Practice "pause and discuss" signals where all play stops immediately
• Rotate through tables, actively monitoring and facilitating
• Address poor sportsmanship immediately and explicitly
• Use team-based games initially for students struggling with competition

Challenge 3: Time Constraints

Issue: Games take time; curriculum coverage pressure is intense

Solution strategies:

• Use shorter games or time-limited sessions
• Focus on games that efficiently address multiple learning objectives
• Replace less effective traditional activities rather than adding to curriculum
• Document how games provide better learning per minute than worksheets

James Peterson: "I calculated that my game-based investigations taught scientific method more effectively in 90 minutes than traditional approach did in 6 hours. That's not adding time—that's saving it."

Challenge 4: Varying Student Skill Levels

Issue: Some students win consistently; others always lose, affecting engagement

Solution strategies:

• Rotate teammates regularly
• Use handicapping systems (more skilled players face additional challenges)
• Focus assessment on learning and improvement, not game results
• Celebrate good strategic thinking regardless of outcome
• Choose games where luck balances skill appropriately

Challenge 5: Assessment and Grading

Issue: How do you grade game-based learning objectively?

Solution strategies:

• Grade written reflections and analyses, not game performance
• Use traditional assessments but with game-contextualized problems
• Evaluate projects based on documented design process
• Assess understanding through explanation (teach-back protocol)

Maria Santos uses rubrics assessing:

• Quality of strategic analysis (30%)
• STEM concepts correctly applied (30%)
• Depth of reflection and metacognition (25%)
• Documentation and communication (15%)

Selecting Appropriate Games for Learning Objectives

Not all games suit all learning objectives. Successful educators match games strategically to STEM concepts.

Mathematics Focus

Best game types:

• Resource management (arithmetic, ratio, proportion, optimization)
• Economic simulation (percentages, profit/loss, budgeting)
• Area control (geometry, spatial reasoning)
• Probability-driven (expected value, risk assessment)

Recommended for different age groups:

• Ages 7-9: Simple resource collection, basic arithmetic
• Ages 10-12: Strategic resource management, multiple operations, probability
• Ages 13-16: Complex economic systems, optimization, statistical analysis

Scientific Thinking Focus

Best game types:

• Systems with emergent complexity (systems thinking)
• Incomplete information games (hypothesis formation)
• Games with variable outcomes (experimental design, data collection)
• Asymmetric games (testing different strategies empirically)

Engineering/Technology Focus

Best game types:

• Building/construction mechanics (structural thinking)
• Optimization puzzles (design under constraints)
• Network/connection games (systems architecture)
• Modifiable rule systems (design iteration)

Selection Criteria Checklist

✓ Curriculum alignment: Does it address specific STEM objectives? ✓ Appropriate complexity: Challenging but not overwhelming for age group? ✓ Session length: Fits available class time? ✓ Player count: Works with typical class sizes/groupings? ✓ Replay value: Interesting across multiple sessions? ✓ Clear rules: Teachable without excessive time investment? ✓ Cost: Affordable for school budgets? ✓ Scalability: Can run multiple simultaneous sessions?

Extending Beyond the Classroom

The most impactful programs extended game-based learning beyond scheduled sessions.

After-School STEM Gaming Clubs

Several schools established voluntary clubs where students explored games more deeply:

Structure:

• Weekly 90-minute sessions
• Student-selected games with teacher facilitation
• Tournament formats motivating consistent attendance
• Older students mentoring younger ones

Outcomes:

• Sustained STEM engagement outside required curriculum
• Peer teaching amplifying learning
• Building school-wide culture valuing strategic thinking

Home-School Connection

Programs encouraging family gameplay produced stronger learning effects:

Strategies:

• Games loaned to families (rotating library)
• Family game night challenges with optional STEM reflection worksheets
• Parent information sessions on STEM concepts in gameplay
• Student-led family tournaments

Parents reported:

• Better understanding of what children were learning
• Natural STEM conversations during family time
• Children enthusiastically explaining mathematical concepts

Inter-School Competitions

Several educators organized regional STEM gaming competitions:

Format:

• Teams compete in strategic gameplay
• Written component: analysis of game strategy using STEM concepts
• Presentation: explain strategic approach and mathematical reasoning

Benefits:

• Higher-stakes motivation for some students
• Showcasing STEM skills publicly
• Building wider community of practice

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How much does implementing game-based STEM education cost?

A: Initial investment varies by program scale. Sarah Mitchell spent approximately £180 on games for a class of 30 (students worked in groups of 4-6). Many quality educational games cost £20-40. Some schools successfully use single copies rotated among groups. Digital versions can reduce costs further. Most educators report costs comparable to or less than traditional manipulatives and workbooks.

Q: Do I need to be a skilled game player to teach this way?

A: No. The educators in these case studies had varying levels of gaming experience. What mattered was understanding learning objectives, facilitating reflection, and making STEM connections explicit. You don't need to be the best player—you need to be a thoughtful facilitator who highlights the learning embedded in gameplay.

Q: How do I convince skeptical administrators?

A: Data works best. Start small (pilot with one class), document outcomes carefully (pre/post assessments, engagement metrics), gather student and parent feedback, and present results. Most administrators respond positively to evidence of improved learning outcomes and student engagement. Frame it as "hands-on active learning" and show explicit curriculum alignment.

Q: What if students become overly competitive or poor sports?

A: Address this explicitly as part of the learning. Establish behavioral expectations before starting, model healthy competitive attitudes, and use poor sportsmanship as teaching moments about emotional regulation. Most students develop better competitive attitudes through repeated practice with clear guidance. For persistently struggling students, start with cooperative games before competitive ones.

Q: Can this approach work with special educational needs students?

A: Yes, often very effectively. Games provide multi-sensory learning, immediate feedback, and natural differentiation. Several educators reported particular success with students who struggle with traditional instruction. Adapt by choosing games matching developmental level, providing additional scaffolding, or modifying rules to accommodate specific needs. Visual-spatial learners especially thrive.

Q: How do I assess learning rather than just game performance?

A: Focus assessment on understanding demonstrated through reflection, analysis, and application to novel contexts. Grade written explanations of strategy, mathematical analyses of decisions, application of concepts to non-game problems, and quality of experimental design. The game performance itself isn't the assessment—it's the vehicle for developing and demonstrating understanding.

Q: What's the minimum time investment for meaningful outcomes?

A: Most successful programs dedicated 60-90 minutes weekly to game-based STEM learning. Less than this, students don't develop sufficient depth. More than 3 hours weekly shows diminishing returns. Consistency over a full term or year matters more than total hours.

---

Conclusion: From Case Studies to Your Classroom

These case studies demonstrate that game-based STEM education isn't theoretical idealism—it's practical, effective, and measurably superior to traditional approaches for many learning objectives.

Sarah Mitchell's mathematics students, James Peterson's scientific thinkers, and Maria Santos's young engineers all experienced transformed STEM engagement and outcomes through thoughtfully implemented game-based learning.

The common threads:

• Games weren't supplementary fun—they were central learning vehicles
• Structure and facilitation mattered enormously
• Explicit STEM connections were essential
• Reflection and metacognition drove deep learning
• Measurable outcomes validated the approach

You don't need perfect resources or ideal conditions. You need:

1. Appropriate games aligned with learning objectives
2. Structured sessions with intentional facilitation
3. Explicit bridges from gameplay to STEM concepts
4. Dedicated reflection time
5. Commitment to documenting outcomes

Start small. Choose one unit, one game, one term. Implement deliberately. Measure outcomes. Refine your approach. Share your results.

The evidence is clear: strategic board games, properly integrated into STEM curricula, produce engaged learners with deep conceptual understanding and genuine enthusiasm for subjects they previously found intimidating or boring.

Your students are capable of sophisticated STEM thinking. Sometimes they just need the right context to demonstrate and develop it. Games provide that context brilliantly.

---

About the Author

The Smoothie Wars Content Team creates educational gaming content, working closely with educators implementing game-based learning programs. the team synthesizes research and practitioner experiences to help teachers effectively integrate strategic games into STEM education.

---

Internal Links:

• How to Teach Kids Business Strategy Through Board Games
• 12 Ways Board Games Improve Decision-Making Skills
• Complete Guide to Resource Management Strategy

External Sources:

• Department for Education: "Game-Based Learning in UK Schools" (2024)
• British Educational Research Association: "Active Learning Comparative Study" (2023)
• STEM Learning: "Effective Practices in Mathematics Education" (2024)
• National STEM Education Network: "Engagement and Outcomes Research" (2024)