Final-semester Petroleum Refining Engineering courses in the Oil and Gas Engineering program require

sustained motivation to integrate complex and interdependent topics. This study investigates whether

incorporating well-designed gamification can mitigate the course’s primary challenge by enhancing student

engagement and interest, while facilitating their understanding and retention of key concepts. During the

gamified sessions, a domain-specific board game for petroleum refining was utilized to enable team navigation

a blended approach: concise, well-scaffolded lectures to establish fundamentals, followed by targeted game-

based activities to let students practice making decisions across the whole refinery process. Future work should

pair satisfaction data with direct learning measures to tune game mechanics to challenging mechanisms and

maximize learning gains.

Gamification in engineering education is the deliberate integration of game elements into non-game

coursework to increase motivation, engagement, and purposeful practice without reducing rigour. It is most

effective when those elements are aligned with learning outcomes and used to complement clear instruction

rather than replace it. Prior studies show that gamification has real benefits, but also clear limits. In a five-year

scores after the lesson (Bracho et al., 2022). They conclude that gamification helps identify weaknesses, tailor

live sessions, and enhance the teaching–learning process, while noting small sample size as a limitation and

proposing continued use in future iterations.

Final-semester Petroleum Refining Engineering (PRE) demands that students integrate complex and

interdependent topics, including crude characterization, distillation sequencing, catalytic conversion, hydrogen

management, product quality, and energy emissions trade-offs, yet courses at this stage often struggle to

sustain motivation and active engagement. In engineering education broadly, gamification (the use of game

elements in non-game contexts) and board-game formats are reported to raise engagement, collaboration, and

perceived value (Cafagna et al., 2019; Jun & Lucas, 2025; Riquelme et al., 2024). However, direct evidence

tailored to petroleum refining remains sparse, indicating a need for domain-specific adaptations that reflect

This classroom intervention was conducted in Semester 20252, teaching two groups of Semester 8, final-year

Oil and Gas Engineering undergraduate students. CEEH2438A (n = 27) and CEEH2438B (n = 25) met for a

90-minute session in a classroom configured for 5 to 6 teams (4 to 5 students each). Students had completed

relevant topics in the previous term.The gamified tool was a refinery-themed board game designed in Canva

(Figure 1), featuring a linear track with START/END tiles, colour-coded challenge squares, and team avatars.

The question bank was aligned to the course outcomes and covered core topics: crude characterization,

distillation, hydrocracking, hydrogen management, product quality, and energy–emissions trade-offs.

Figure 1 Refinery-themed board game designed in Canva

In each session, students formed five to six teams and chose a figurine as their marker. Teams moved by rolling

(Q1–Q3), Enthusiasm (Q4), Organization (Q5–Q6), Group Interaction (Q7), Individual Rapport (Q8–Q9),

Breadth of Coverage (Q10–Q11), Supplementary Materials (Q12), and Workload/Difficulty (Q13–Q14). The

exit survey used the Likert scale (1 to 5) to measure student perceptions of learning value, method

effectiveness, engagement, organization, instructor support, teamwork, coverage, and workload/difficulty.

Figure 2 shows uniformly positive ratings for the board-game session across learning value and enthusiasm.

Q1 (understanding the subject) recorded 78.8% “5” and 15.4% “4” (top-2 = 94.2%), followed by Q2

(effectiveness as a learning method) with 82.7% “5” and 11.5% “4” (top-2 = 94.2%), Q3 (learn more than

traditional classes) with 71.2% “5” and 23.1% “4” (top-2 = 94.3%, 5.8% neutral, no negative ratings), and Q4

realistic constraints.

Figure 2 Responses on aspects of learning value and enthusiasm (values in percentage)

Figure 3 shows that students felt the board game was straightforward, easy to run, and good for learning

together: Q7 (teamwork) had 98.1% in the top two Likert options (4–5), Q6 (materials easy to find) had 98.0%,

and Q5 (activity clear from the start) had 92.3%. This result suggests that the game’s cooperative setup, shared

goals, turn-taking, and visible progress lowered friction and gave students a structured space to explain ideas to

one another. The small remainder (about 7.7% on Q5 and 1.9% on Q6–Q7) points to minor start-up confusion;

Figure 3 Responses on aspects of organization and group interaction (values in percentage)

and supports agency. A small tail of low ratings (≈2–6%) suggests that some students would benefit from

additional support, such as quick check-ins, optional hint cards, or targeted facilitator passes. Overall, the

board-game format not only heightens interest but also strengthens instructor–student rapport and supports

knowledge gain, confirming its value as a motivational, application-focused complement to direct instruction.

Figure 4 Responses on aspects of individual rapport and breadth of coverage (values in percentage)

Students felt well supported and not overburdened. On the 5-point Likert scale (Figure 5), class

notes/explanations were rated as very helpful (Q12: 84.6% “5”, 13.5% “4”; top-2 = 98.1%), and the workload

was seen as reasonable (Q14: 63.5% “5”, 25.0% “4”; top-2 = 88.5%). Difficulty showed more spread (Q13:

44.2% “5”, 23.1% “4”, 21.2% “3”, 7.7% “2”, 3.8% “1”), suggesting the board-game tasks were challenging

Self-reported surveys in this study capture perceptions, not demonstrated learning, and can be inflated by

enjoyment, social desirability, or gratitude. Because the study was conducted in one course at a single

institution, cohort culture and instructor effects limit generalizability. Ceiling effects on the Likert scale reduce

sensitivity to differences, and a novelty boost from the new board game may temporarily raise enthusiasm.

Future work should add objective measures (pre/post concept tests, graded tasks, delayed retention), use more

This study shows that a domain-specific board game can usefully boost engagement in a final-semester

Petroleum Refining Engineering course. Students reported very high ratings for enthusiasm, perceived

effectiveness, understanding, teamwork, and instructor support, while also judging the workload manageable

and the difficulty at a productive level. In practice, the game works best as a complement to short, well-

scaffolded lectures, turning core ideas into flowsheet-level decisions through cooperative play and fast

feedback. Minor start-up hiccups noted by a few students can be eased with a one-page quick-start, a brief

demo round, and clear role cards. Since our results come mainly from self-reported surveys in one course and

show some ceiling effects, future runs should add objective checks such as concept quizzes, performance

rubrics, and delayed tests, to confirm lasting learning gains and refine the game mechanics for the most

1. Bracho, G., Martí-Aldaraví, P., García-Tíscar, J., & Gomez-Soriano, J. (2022). On the use of gamification

tools for blended learning approaches in Thermodynamics courses. 1–8.

https://doi.org/10.4995/inn2021.2021.13370

2. Cafagna, R., Stamoglou, F. E. M., Falcão, M. V. F. N., Souza, A. L. B., Calixto, E. E. S., & Pessoa, F. L.

P. (2019). GameQ: Software for teaching in chemical engineering. Chemical Engineering Transactions,

74(May), 1273–1278. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1974213

3. Jun, M., & Lucas, T. (2025). Gamification elements and their impacts on education: A review.

Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025155

4. Riquelme, A., de Prado, J., Bonache, M. V., Rams, J., Sánchez, M., Torres, B., Rodriguez, M. D. E.,

Rodrigo, P., & Muñoz, B. K. (2024). Table Games as a Tool to Learn about Material Science in