Enhancing Student Engagement Using Online Simulation Games in Learning Construction Materials: A Qualitative Case Study among Construction Management Students

Student engagement is a critical determinant of effective learning in construction education, particularly in technical subjects such as Construction Materials, where students are required to understand complex material properties and their real-world applications. However, traditional lecture-based teaching methods often limit active participation, reduce experiential learning opportunities, and hinder students’ ability to connect theoretical knowledge with practical construction scenarios. In response to these challenges, this study explores strategies for enhancing student engagement through the use of an online simulation game among Construction Management students. A qualitative case study design was adopted, involving semi-structured interviews with 22 undergraduate students who experienced simulation-based learning activities. The data were analysed using content analysis to identify key themes related to student engagement. The findings revealed five main factors influencing engagement: interactivity in learning processes, gamification and motivation elements, realism and experiential learning experience, technical usability challenges, and collaborative learning integration. Students reported that interactive simulation tasks improved attention and participation, while gamification features such as points, levels, and rewards enhanced motivation. Realistic simulation scenarios strengthened their understanding by linking theory to practice, whereas collaborative activities promoted communication, peer learning, and shared problem-solving. However, usability issues such as system lag and interface complexity were identified as barriers that may affect learning continuity. Based on these findings, the study proposes an Online Simulation Game Engagement Strategy (OSGES), which integrates pedagogical, technological, and social dimensions to enhance student engagement in construction education. The strategy emphasises structured simulation integration, task-based learning, gamified motivation, collaborative engagement, and continuous feedback mechanisms. The study contributes to the growing body of literature on game-based learning in higher education and provides practical guidance for educators seeking to enhance student engagement in Construction Materials and related construction disciplines through innovative digital learning approaches.

Online; Gamification; Engagement; Construction; Materials

1. Abdullah, M. N. L. Y., Hsien, O. L., Nagaratnam, S., & Leong, H. J. L. Y. K. (2024). Factors influencing undergraduate students’ engagement in online learning: A PLS-SEM approach. Learning: Research and Practice, 10(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2024.2348997 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Baghban, M. H. (2025). The effect of student active learning on awareness of students on environmental impacts of material selection for building application: A case study. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bhatnagar, S., Jacoba, G., Devkar, G., & Arefazar, Y. (2023). A systematic review of lean simulation games in the construction industry. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 19(6), 701–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2022.2155604 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: What is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(9). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Dufresne, R. L., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Wenk, L. (2022). Classroom learning assessment techniques (CLATs): Effective feedback in active learning environments. Journal of College Science Teaching, 51(4), 56–63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Epley, J. (2016). Learning by doing: Using an online simulation game in an international relations course. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. ElGewely, M., & Nadim, W. (2020). Immersive virtual reality environment for construction detailing education using building information modeling (BIM). Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Extremera, J., Vergara, D., Rubio, M. P., et al. (2020). Effects of time in virtual reality learning environments linked with materials science and engineering. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Fan, H., & Froese, T. (2005). A web-based project management game for computer-assisted instruction. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLOS ONE, 15(5), e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Huang, Y.-M., Silitonga, L. M., Murti, A. T., & Wu, T.-T. (2023). Learner engagement in a business simulation game: Impact on higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(1), 96–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221106918 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hrastinski, S. (2021). Digital collaboration: A research agenda. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10234-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Ilbeigi, M., & Bairaktarova, D. (2022). Work-in-progress: A gamified pedagogical system for teaching construction scheduling through active exploration. Stevens Institute of Technology Research Output. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ilbeigi, M., Bairaktarova, D., & Ehsani, R. (2023). A gamified method for construction engineering education: Learning through guided active exploration. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.05209 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ismail, I., Hasan, H. F. A., & Othman, M. Z. (2023). Factors influencing student engagement in open distance learning. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(6), 1862–1868. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2019). Cooperation and the use of technology. Interaction Book Company. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Lee, S., Nikolic, D., & Messner, J. I. (2015). Framework of the virtual construction simulator 3 for construction planning and management education. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Lucas, J., & Gajjar, D. (2022). Influence of virtual reality on student learning in undergraduate construction education. International Journal of Construction Education and Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Marchiori, R. S., & Song, S. (2024). A game-based learning method to promote soft skills in construction education. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Meadati, P., Juneja, P., Siddiqi, K., & Hayath, A. (2025). Learning environment using mixed reality information model. In International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Meadati, P., Juneja, P., Siddiqi, K., & Hayath, A. (2024). Learning concrete formwork using 3D simulation game. In International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Meadati, P., Akhnoukh, A. (2021). 3D scans—A new teaching tool in construction education. Advances in Science, Technology and Innovation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Meadati, P., Aklinoukh, A. (2019). 3D scans—A new teaching tool in construction education. In International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Mirhasani, S., Bosch, J., & Louis, J. (2025). Assessing the efficacy of virtual reality site visits to enhance remote learning experiences for civil and construction engineering students. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Mubarrat, S. T., Min, B.-C., Shao, T., Smith, E. C., Benes, B., Magana, A. J., Mousas, C., & Kao, D. (2026). Game-based and gamified robotics education: A comparative systematic review and design guidelines. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22199 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Moon, J. A. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Nadeem, M., Oroszlanyova, M., & Farag, W. (2023). Effect of digital game-based learning on student engagement and motivation. Computers, 12(9), 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12090177 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Nikolic, D., Lee, S., Zappe, S. E., & Messner, J. I. (2015). Integrating simulation games into construction curricula: The VCS3 case study. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(6), 1661–1677. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Nikolic, D., & Messner, J. I. (2012). Measuring the value of “all play and no work”: Can rigorous assessment of simulation games drive innovative teaching in construction? In Construction Research Congress 2012: Construction Challenges in a Flat World. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Orr, L., & Weiner, N. (2025). Innovations and challenges in student engagement in higher education. Innovations and Challenges in Student Engagement in Higher Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Petrova, M. N. (2020). Exploring the gap between student-centred learning and students learning outcomes: A case-study of a materials for interior design class. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Rahat, M. R., & ElZomor, M. (2024). Leveraging an active-learning approach through online courses to foster sustainable, equitable, and resilient infrastructure concepts. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Raiser, S., Warkalla, B., Schneider, A., & Kaiser, K. (2018). “Will it blend?” Combining online and on-site elements in simulation games. Professional and Practice-based Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Rose, M., Antonaci, A., Bonnet, M., & Klemke, R. (2025). Learning success, engagement and fun: Evaluating an educational game in higher education as replacement for a homework assignment. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Rogmans, T., & Abaza, W. (2019). The impact of international business strategy simulation games on student engagement. Simulation and Gaming. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Safiena, S., & Goh, Y. M. (2024). Authentic learning questionnaire for digital simulation games in higher education: A construction safety case study. Education and Information Technologies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Saleem, A., & Jeelani, I. (2024). Edu-tainment in STEM: Exploring the feasibility of television-based educational games in engineering education. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Safiena, S., & Goh, Y. M. (2024). Authentic learning questionnaire for digital simulation games in higher education: A construction safety case study. Education and Information Technologies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Subhash, S., & Cudney, E. A. (2018). Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Sun, Y., Bhadaniya, P., Eiris, R., & Gheisari, M. (2026). Online construction site visit: Studying construction students’ collaborative problem-solving behaviors. Computers and Education: X Reality. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Thomas, G. S. (2005). ‘LANDTECH’ computer based landscape construction learning modules. Building Education and Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Venter, M. P., Trafford, N., & Wolff, K. (2022). A proposed classification system for online forum content. In IEEE IFEES World Engineering Education Forum - Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC) Conference Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Yang, Q., Zhang, Y., & Lin, Y. (2022). Study on the influence mechanism of virtual simulation game learning experience on student engagement and entrepreneurial skill development. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 772157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.772157 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Zhan, Y., Xu, Y., & Ye, H. (2021). Reflective learning journals and student engagement in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(3), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787421990842 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Zhong, L. (2023). Investigating students’ engagement patterns and supporting game features in a personalized computerized role-playing game environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221125946 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study