This blog post was written by Maria Livada as part of the final assignment for the module EDM122: Digital Literacies and Open Practice.

As a lecturer in Engineering, I’ve spent years oscillating between excitement and anxiety about technology’s role in education. Excitement because tools like simulations and AI-driven platforms can unlock creativity in ways whiteboards never could. Anxiety, because the pace of digital change demands that we rethink how we teach – not just what we teach. Industries now demand engineers who aren’t just technically skilled but digitally literate: thinkers who can collaborate virtually, critically evaluate digital systems and innovate with tools that didn’t exist a decade ago. But how do we prepare students for this reality?

This question led me to explore digital games and educational tools – not as plain activities but as transformative bridges between theory and practice. In this post, I’ll share how these tools are reshaping my teaching, what the research says (and where it falls short), and how we can tackle the challenges of integrating them meaningfully. First, I will provide some context and valuable statistics on digital literacy.

Digital literacy consists of the ability to effectively communicate and create using digital tools and the development of skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving and collaboration (JISC, 2022).

According to the 2023/24 UK HE Students’ Digital Experience Insights Survey by JISC, although 85% of students perceived their university’s digital learning environment as above average, only 37% believed they had adequate opportunities to build digital skills needed for future employment (JISC, 2023).

When I started teaching, I focused on ensuring students were fluent with software like MATLAB and Simulink. But I soon realised this wasn’t enough. One student, for example, could model a control system in Simulink but struggled to troubleshoot why it failed under real-world constraints. At the same time, another had difficulties translating their findings into a collaborative report using shared digital platforms.

This disconnection reflects broader concerns in the literature. As Aoun (2017) and Chakrabarti et al. (2021) argue, automation and AI aren’t just changing what engineers do – they’re redefining their thinking. Technical proficiency alone won’t cut it; students need resilience, creativity, and the ability to “learn how to learn” in a digital ecosystem. For me, this means using digital tools like virtual labs and digital games not just to simulate experiments but to push students to ask: Why a system does or does not behave differently in simulation and reality? What assumptions used to build this software?

For instance, using Falstad’s circuit simulator, an MSc student a few years back helped me redesign a lab experiment – an exercise that I currently use in my Electronics I class to test students’ understanding of that concept.

But digital literacy isn’t just about tools; it’s about mindset. I’ve noticed that current students (who grow up with technology) often assume they’re “digitally literate” simply because they can navigate apps or social media. Yet, when asked to evaluate the reliability of an online source or adjust the parameters of a system designed using a digital tool according to a set of specifications, many hesitate. This aligns with Caratozzolo et al.’s (2021) observation that digital literacy requires not just technical skills but also critical thinking and adaptability.

Let’s address the elephant in the room: many of us still see games as distractions. One of my most memorable teaching moments was when I introduced Kahoot, an educational platform for designing quizzes, to my Probability and Statistics class. With Kahoot, you can experiment with gamification features, introducing social learning into your teaching practice. My main goal at the time was to validate if students had met the learning outcomes of that lecture. Hence, I introduced the game at the end of the class, and I asked them to split into teams of 3 people. A member from each team would use a smartphone to answer the questions. The game was timed, so the team that answered most of the questions in less time would be the winning team. The game allows to create a leader board and keep track of a team’s progress for quite some time. At first, students were quite hesitant with this approach, and I thought they felt that it would be a waste of their time. But I was mistaken. Students enjoyed it a lot and the attendance didn’t drop as much for the remaining teaching weeks.

Research backs this up. Educational games have been shown to strengthen specific aspects of digital literacy, including information finding, critical thinking, and social understanding (Rohmani and Pambudi, 2023). These outcomes align closely with constructivist learning principles, which emphasise the importance of active, learner-centred experiences. Likewise, Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory highlights how digital tools can support practical exercises, reflection, and the process of building to improvements. Games like SimCity or Bridge Constructor create “authentic” learning environments where students confront trade-offs (e.g., cost vs. safety in engineering design) that mirror real-world challenges (Udeozor et al., 2023). But here’s my critique: most studies focus on what games teach, not how they foster critical digital literacy. But it is not just that, when students are playing a digital game, they’re not just learning systems thinking – they’re also navigating the game’s interface, modding tools, and online forums. These “hidden” skills—troubleshooting, collaborating in digital spaces, and evaluating user-generated content are where true literacy develops.

Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) tools take this further. Tang et al. (2010) highlight how VR games improve decision-making under pressure, like managing a virtual disaster scenario. But in my experience, the real magic happens after the simulation. When students debrief in Microsoft Teams, sharing screenshots and debating choices, they’re practising the kind of digital collaboration they’ll need in remote engineering teams.

Yet, games aren’t the answer to all problems. Students can become so fixated on “winning” that they can overlook crucial features, like safety margins or certain specifications (in an engineering setting). According to Kilgore et al. (2007) gamification can sometimes prioritise competition over critical reflection. To address this, I am thinking of pairing gameplay with reflective journals. After each game, students will be asked to write about ethical dilemmas they encounter (e.g., cutting costs vs. risking safety) and how they would apply these in real engineering contexts.

Beyond games, collaborative platforms like Microsoft Teams, Miro, and Notion play a vital role in engineering education. These tools support project-based learning, enabling students to collaborate on designs, manage workflows, and communicate effectively. AI-powered systems further enhance learning by offering personalised feedback and recommendations, empowering students to take control of their progress.

Virtual labs, such as Labster, are another game-changer. For example, students can simulate fluid dynamics experiments, exploring theoretical principles without needing physical lab equipment. This not only makes learning more accessible but also ensures that students from diverse backgrounds can engage with high-quality STEM education.

But here is where I see a gap in the literature. While studies like Gilliot et al. (2010) emphasise the importance of digital tools in fostering 21st-century skills, they often overlook the emotional and social dimensions of learning. For instance, when students use Miro to brainstorm ideas, they’re not just collaborating – they’re building trust, negotiating roles, and managing conflicts. These “soft” skills are just as critical as technical ones, yet they’re rarely measured or discussed in research. Consider AI-driven feedback systems. While they can easily identify coding errors or structural flaws, they can’t replicate the mentorship of a professor who notices a student’s frustration and offers encouragement. This tension between efficiency and humanity is something I tackle with daily. As Pool et al. (2019) note, emotional intelligence is a cornerstone of adaptability – but how do we teach it in a digital-first world?

Of course, integrating these tools isn’t easy. Early on, I assumed students would naturally adapt to digital collaboration. Then I assigned a Miro whiteboard exercise – only to watch one group dominate the board while other groups waited passively. This taught me that digital literacy isn’t just about access; it’s about equity in participation.

Another problem is accessibility. While in my teaching practice I try to use lightweight tools like Falstad, not every student has reliable internet or a capable device. This aligns with Gilliot et al.’s (2010) warning that tech-heavy curricula risk excluding marginalised learners. My solution? Pair high-tech and low-tech tasks. For example, students might design a system in a virtual lab but present their findings via a video recorded on a smartphone which aligns with Frydenberg’s (2015) emphasis on creativity over specs.

Teaching staff resistance is another barrier. Instructors may feel unprepared to integrate digital tools effectively due to a lack of training or familiarity. Institutions must provide professional development programs that equip educators with the necessary skills and confidence. Peer-led workshops and open access to resources can further support staff in embracing digital tools.

Assessment is perhaps the trickiest challenge. Traditional exams often fail to capture the creativity and collaboration nurtured by digital tools. Inspired by Craifaleanu and Craifaleanu (2022), I now use “gamified group assessments” where students as part of a group solve engineering problems within simulations imitating real-world remote teamwork.

Looking ahead, I’m excited and cautious. Tools like AI-driven analytics promise personalised learning, but I worry about over-reliance on algorithms. Instead, I would like to further explore co-creation, i.e., students to build their own simulations, then evaluate each other’s designs. It’s messy, but as one student said, “Building a game taught me more about user bias than any lecture.”

I’m also hopeful for institutional support for OER. I hope that my department will adopt openly licensed textbooks. This helps to overcome barriers and guarantee that all students have access to good materials. By implementing these measures, we can make the learning environment more inclusive and efficient. This aligns with Niño and Evans’ (2015) vision of students as active knowledge producers, not passive consumers.

But perhaps the most transformative step is fostering critical pedagogy, a term associated with educational theorist Paulo Freire (Freire, 2005). It’s about acknowledging the challenges of digital inequality and algorithmic bias while empowering students to reshape the tools they inherit.

Digital literacy isn’t just about keeping up with technology – it’s about empowering students to question, adapt, and reshape the tools they’ll inherit. Games and simulations are powerful, but their true value lies in initiating conversations: Who decides what a “valid” simulation result is? How do we design inclusive digital spaces? As educators, we’re not just teaching engineers. We’re fostering citizens of a digital world. And that’s a challenge worth playing for.

I have chosen to publish this blog post under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA) license. I think this kind of licence aligns with my values of openness, accessibility, collaboration, inclusivity and, finally, knowledge sharing. It enables people to share, adapt, and build on this work for non-commercial purposes if they attribute the original author and any derivative works released under the same citation. This hopefully will contribute to the discussion on digital literacy and will urge educators to use open approaches to help all students have a fair chance to learn. Digital games and digital educational tools can be great tools in transforming engineering education, enhancing digital literacy, and preparing students for a world that is increasingly dependent on technology. They offer ways of learning by doing, critical problem solving and teamwork and provide a solution to the problems of accessibility and equity. Digital literacy is not just a skill; it is a skill for life in the modern world.

References

Aoun, J.E. (2017) ‘Robot-proof’, MIT Press.

Caratozzolo, P., Alvarez-Delgado, A. & Sirkis, G. (2021) ‘Fostering digital literacy through active learning in engineering education’, 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), pp. 1–6.

Chakrabarti, S. et al. (2021) ‘Preparing engineers for lifelong learning in the era of industry 4.0’, 2021 World Engineering Education Forum/Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF/GEDC), pp. 518–523.

Craifaleanu, A. and Craifaleanu, I.G. (2022). ‘A co‐creation experiment for virtual laboratories of mechanics in engineering education’, Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(4), pp.991-1008.

Dacre Pool, L., Gurbutt, D. and Houston, K. (2019) ‘Developing employable, emotionally intelligent, and resilient graduate citizens of the future’, Employability via Higher Education: Sustainability as Scholarship, pp. 83–97. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-26342-3_6.

Freire, P. (2005). ‘Pedagogy Of The Oppressed: 30Th Anniversary Edition’, Trans. By Myra Bergman Ramos. Editorial: New York Continuum.

Frydenberg, M. (2015) ‘Achieving digital literacy through game development: An authentic learning experience’, Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 12, pp. 256–269.

Gilliot, J.M., Garlatti, S. & Simon, G. (2010) ‘Impact of digital literacy on the engineering curriculum’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEE), pp. 1–6.

JISC. (2022). Individual digital capabilities. [online] Available at: https://digitalcapability.jisc.ac.uk/what-is-digital-capability/individual-digital-capabilities/.

JISC (2023). 2023/24 UK higher education students digital experience insights survey findings. [online] Available at: https://digitalinsights.jisc.ac.uk/reports-and-briefings/our-reports/2023-24-uk-higher-education-students-digital-experience-insights-survey-findings/.

Kilgore, D. et al. (2007) ‘Creative, contextual, and engaged: Are women the engineers of 2020?’, 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings [Preprint].

Kolb, D. A. (1984) ‘Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Niño, M. & Evans, M.A. (2015) ‘Fostering 21st-century skills in constructivist engineering classrooms with digital game-based learning’, IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 10, pp. 143–149.

Rohmani, R. & Pambudi, N. (2023) ‘A critical review of educational games as a tool for strengthening digital literacy’, International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(1), pp. 23–36.

Tang, Y., Shetty, S.S. & Chen, X. (2010) ‘Empowering students with engineering literacy and problem-solving through interactive virtual reality games’, 2010 2nd International IEEE Consumer Electronics Society’s Games Innovations Conference, pp. 1–6.

Udeozor, C., Russo-Abegão, F. & Glassey, J. (2023) ‘Perceptions and factors affecting the adoption of digital games for engineering education: A mixed-method research’, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), p. 45.