Educational gaming, meaning the use of games, game mechanics, and game-like structures to support learning, has been a feature of school environments long enough that the debate about it is no longer whether it belongs in schools but which versions of it are doing what. The range is wide enough that "games in education" as a category does not have a coherent answer. The question is always which specific tool, at which moment, designed with which goal in mind.
The tension the activity above surfaces is real and documented. Games are effective at motivating students to engage with material they would otherwise avoid. They are often less effective at producing the kind of slow, error-reviewing, concept-consolidating work that builds deep understanding. Neither of these observations makes games bad. They are design parameters that make some games right for some purposes and wrong for others.
What research says
The research on educational games is mixed enough that anyone who tells you it clearly shows games work, or clearly shows they do not, is summarizing selectively. What the better studies tend to find:
Games are consistently effective at increasing time-on-task and motivation, particularly for students who are disengaged from traditional formats. Whether that increased engagement produces learning gains depends heavily on what the game is doing. A game that builds a skill through practice is doing something different from a game that offers a way to appear to practice without doing the underlying cognitive work.
Immediate feedback loops, which games do well, support learning when the feedback is accurate and actionable. A game that tells you immediately that you got a question wrong, shows you the right answer, and requires you to demonstrate understanding before moving on is doing something useful. A game where you lose points and retry without understanding why is doing something less useful. The feedback mechanism matters more than the game format.
The gamification distinction
Gamification, meaning the addition of game elements like points, badges, and leaderboards to non-game activities, is different from educational games, and the distinction matters. Gamification motivates through external reward: you do the thing because you get points. Games at their best motivate through intrinsic engagement: you do the thing because the doing is compelling. When gamification works, it is usually because the external reward system is a scaffold that eventually becomes unnecessary. When it does not work, students optimize for the points rather than the learning, finding the fastest path to the reward regardless of whether it involves the thing the reward was supposed to encourage.
Kahoot, Quizlet Live, Gimkit, and similar classroom competition tools are mostly gamification rather than educational games. They can be useful for retrieval practice and review, and many teachers use them effectively for exactly that purpose. They are less useful for introducing new material, building complex skills, or anything that requires the kind of concentrated, reflective effort that competitive formats tend to displace.
What this means for families
If your child is playing an educational game at school, the question worth asking is not "is this educational" but "what is it designed to build, and is this a moment when that kind of activity serves the goal." A teacher who can answer that question has thought about the tool. One who cannot is probably using it because students like it, which is not nothing (engagement is a real prerequisite for learning) but not a sufficient answer on its own.