Science, Faculty of
Non UBC
Chemistry, Department of
DSpace
Education Sciences 14 (12): 1273 (2024)
Clapson, Marissa Lorrene
Schechtel, Shauna
Davy, Emma
Durfy, Connor Skye
Active learning techniques are taking the classroom by storm. Numerous research articles have highlighted the benefits of active learning techniques on student understanding, knowledge retention, problem solving, and teamwork. One avenue to introduce active learning into the classroom is the gamification of course learning content. Educational escape rooms are one such example in which students solve a series of puzzles related to course content to “escape” within a set time frame. Escape games play an interesting role in motivating students, building communication skills and allowing for multimodal learning, having been shown to increase students’ test results and enjoyment of the course content. In lieu of the traditional escape room format, a fully immersive room(s) with classical escape room puzzles (finding items, riddles, alternative locking mechanisms) is used alongside learning activities, and educators have begun to develop truncated activities for easier applications in larger classrooms. In this review, we explore several escape room activities: immersive, paper-based, Battle Boxes, condensed escape activities, and online/virtual, providing examples of the types of puzzles included therein. We similarly discuss the creation of escape room materials and recommendations for the interested educator, as well as the learning benefits of engaging in puzzle development. Finally, we provide an overview on methods to assess active learning through escape rooms, establishing an overview of empirical evidence towards their effectiveness as a learning tool.
Citation: Clapson, M.L.; Schechtel, S.;Davy, E.; Durfy, C.S. Solving theChemistry Puzzle—A Review on theApplication of Escape-Room-StylePuzzles in Undergraduate ChemistryTeaching. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273.https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121273Academic Editor: Darina DichevaReceived: 1 October 2024Revised: 4 November 2024Accepted: 15 November 2024Published: 21 November 2024Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.This article is an open access articledistributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative CommonsAttribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).ReviewSolving the Chemistry Puzzle—A Review on the Applicationof Escape-Room-Style Puzzles in UndergraduateChemistry TeachingMarissa Lorrene Clapson 1,* , Shauna Schechtel 2, Emma Davy 3 and Connor Skye Durfy 31 Department of Chemistry, University of Prince Edward Island, 550 University Ave,Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3, Canada2 Department of Chemistry, Queens University, 90 Bader Land, Chernoff Hall, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada3 Department of Chemistry, University of British Columbia, 2036 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada* Correspondence: mlclapson@upei.caAbstract: Active learning techniques are taking the classroom by storm. Numerous research articleshave highlighted the benefits of active learning techniques on student understanding, knowledgeretention, problem solving, and teamwork. One avenue to introduce active learning into the classroomis the gamification of course learning content. Educational escape rooms are one such example inwhich students solve a series of puzzles related to course content to “escape” within a set timeframe. Escape games play an interesting role in motivating students, building communication skillsand allowing for multimodal learning, having been shown to increase students’ test results andenjoyment of the course content. In lieu of the traditional escape room format, a fully immersiveroom(s) with classical escape room puzzles (finding items, riddles, alternative locking mechanisms) isused alongside learning activities, and educators have begun to develop truncated activities for easierapplications in larger classrooms. In this review, we explore several escape room activities: immersive,paper-based, Battle Boxes, condensed escape activities, and online/virtual, providing examples ofthe types of puzzles included therein. We similarly discuss the creation of escape room materials andrecommendations for the interested educator, as well as the learning benefits of engaging in puzzledevelopment. Finally, we provide an overview on methods to assess active learning through escaperooms, establishing an overview of empirical evidence towards their effectiveness as a learning tool.Keywords: gamification; escape room; humor/puzzles/games; active learning; chemistry education;undergraduate/general; applications of chemistry1. IntroductionThe revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning suggests that higher learning, involvingprocedural and metacognitive knowledge, is engaged when students can interact withlearning processes. This includes carrying out a procedure (apply), detecting how parts ofa process or theory relate to one another (analyze), making judgements based on criteria(evaluate), and designing an original product (create) [1]. In order to engage with thesehigher levels of learning, classroom structures must move beyond classical lecturing (pas-sive learning) to provide students with organized experiences in which they can interactwith course content more directly (active learning). The Learning Pyramid provides asimplified view of the success of learning strategies on knowledge retention, showcasingthat active learning techniques, flipped classrooms (teaching), or laboratories (practice) leadto better knowledge retention (Figure 1). While the percentages of knowledge retentionreported within the Learning Pyramid are debated [2], the framework highlights that activelearning strategies are in line with achieving higher learning, as described by Bloom. Ingeneral, active learning techniques can be categorized into four themes: (1) individualEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121273 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/educationEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 2 of 44nonpolling (e.g., concept maps); (2) in-class polling (e.g., iClickers or TopHat); (3) whole-class discussions (e.g., case studies or worked problems); and (4) collaborative team-basedactivities (e.g., worksheets, games, or hands-on activities) [3]. In all cases, the goals withina learning experience are centralized on providing students with new knowledge, creatingopportunities for skill development, challenging preconceived notions, and developingbeneficial behaviors.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 45 retention reported within the Learning Pyramid are debated [2], the framework highlights that active learning strategies are in line with achieving higher learning, as described by Bloom. In general, active learning techniques can be categorized into four themes: (1) in-dividual nonpolling (e.g., concept maps); (2) in-class polling (e.g., iClickers or TopHat); (3) whole-class discussions (e.g., case studies or worked problems); and (4) collaborative team-based activities (e.g., worksheets, games, or hands-on activities) [3]. In all cases, the goals within a learning experience are centralized on providing students with new knowledge, creating opportunities for skill development, challenging preconceived no-tions, and developing beneficial behaviors. Figure 1. The Learning Pyramid (adapted from National Training Laboratories, Bethel, ME, USA). Teaching and learning method (% average knowledge retention rate). Active learning in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) classrooms is a well-established, and now commonly used, practice to increase student performance [4–8]. For example, research by Freeman et al. showcases that active learning can increase the average student examination performance by a half a letter grade while, similarly, lower-ing the failure rate by 55%, compared to lecture-only courses [4]. In first-year general chemistry, Mutambuki et al. have shown that a combination of metacognition (ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate one’s own understanding and performance [9]) and active learning significantly increases students’ exam performance, lowers the number of “D” and “F” letter grades, and lowers the number of course withdrawals [10]. Similar work has shown that active learning in other undergraduate chemistry courses significantly im-proves student outcomes, most noted in students with lower academic achievement levels [11] and underrepresented groups [12]. Despite the benefits of active learning, student perceptions of active learning techniques as efficient tools for teaching can be mixed de-pending on the technique chosen [7,13–15]. For example, in-person discussion-based ac-tivities or team-based activities are often well received by chemistry students [16] com-pared to online discussion forums where student engagement can be low [17–19]. The benefits of active learning highlight the need to develop thoughtful engagement opportu-nities in which students can explore learning together through guided discussion-based activities [14,15]. The application of gamified learning materials is an excellent method to engage students, incorporating opportunities for hands-on application of learning objec-tives, allowing for multimodal learning and team communication. The benefits of gami-fied learning and the application of escape rooms as immersive learning experience are outlined herein. The unique design of escape rooms not only allows for discussion-Figure 1. The Learning Pyramid (adapted fro National Training Laboratories, Bethel, ME, USA).Teaching and learning method (% average knowledge retention rate).Active learning in sci nce, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) classrooms is awell-established, and now commonly used, practice to increase stud nt performance [4–8].For example, research by Fre man et al. showcases that active learning can increase theaverage student examina ion perfor a ce by a half a letter grade while, similarly, loweringthe failure rate by 55%, compared to lecture-only cou ses [4]. In fi st-year general chemistry,Mutambuki et al. have shown hat a combination of metacognition (a ility t plan, monitor,and evaluate one’s own understanding nd performance [9]) and active learning signif-icantly increases students’ exam performance, low rs th numb f “D” and “F” lett rgrades, and lowers the number of course withdrawals [10]. Similar work has sho n thatactive learning in ot er undergraduate chemistry courses si nificantly improves studentoutcomes, most noted in students with lower academic achievement levels [11] and un-derrepresented groups [12]. Despite the benefits of active learning, student perceptions ofactive learning techniques as efficient tools for teaching can be mixed depending on the tech-nique chosen [7,13–15]. For example, in-person discussion-based activities or team-basedactivities are often well received by chemistry students [16] compared to online discussionforums where student engagement can be low [17–19]. The benefits of active learninghighlight the need to develop thoughtful engagement opportunities in which students canexplore learning together through guided discussion-based activities [14,15]. The applica-tion of gamified learning materials is an excellent method to engage students, incorporatingopportunities for hands-on application of learning objectives, allowing for multimodallearning and team communication. The benefits of gamified learning and the application ofescape rooms as immersive learning experience are outlined herein. The unique design ofescape rooms not only allows for discussion-focused engagement but provides an avenuefor students to apply key learning objectives in a “real-world” experience.In this review, we present an overview of the current literature around the use ofescape-room-style puzzles in chemical education and provide practical guides for in-structors looking to incorporate these tools. Additionally, we provide context about thepedagogical value of escape-room-style puzzles, a summary of assessment methods whichEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 3 of 44can be used for active learning techniques (such as this one), and a future outlook on usingthese tools.1.1. Gamification of Learning“The “holy grail” for training professionals is to harness the motivational proper-ties of [games] to enhance learning and accomplish instructional objectives.”—Thatcher and Robinson [20].The Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle defines that learning takes place when indi-viduals engage with concrete experiences, are provided with the opportunity for reflectiveobservation, explore abstract conceptualization, and perform active experimentation [21].This learning cycle is often reflected in experimental development in which learners drawon knowledge gained in previous experiences to develop or improve new processes andgameplay, taking place multiple times as the game proceeds [22]. Gamification of learningis defined as the application of gaming components into non-gaming environments. Thedesire to improve problem solving and increase student motivation [23], has grown in pop-ularity in recent years [24]. Gamification of learning and game-based learning, learning inwhich participants achieve educational targets by playing games, are often considered to besynonymous; however, it has been argued that gamification is embedded into the learningprocess and cannot be replaced by games alone, while game-based learning relies on thethoughtful development of a game itself [23]. For example, utilization of leaderboards orbadges in pedagogical activities would be considered gamification but not game-basedlearning as no game has been developed. However, using a game to teach a topic would beconsidered both gamification of learning and game-based learning.Self-Determination Theory, a widely adopted theory in the study of gamified learning,highlights that student’s sense of autonomy, competence, and material relatedness arethree key factors influencing intrinsic motivation [24]. Work by Buil, Catalán, and Martínezprovides empirical evidence that specific game design elements can help to improvestudent motivation by meeting students’ need for autonomy, competence, and materialrelatedness [25]. For example, developing avatars, meaningful stories, and quests canincrease feelings of autonomy. Similarly, design elements like teamwork, leader boards,and background development can better relate game content to course content [24,26,27],while competition-based learning components such as point boards, levels, badges, andtimed trials can give students a stronger sense of competence [28]. Research by Athertonet al. has also shown that games can have a beneficial impact for autistic individuals,providing an alternative platform for group discussion [29]. For a systematic review ofempirical evidence towards the effectiveness of gamification of learning, we turn readers towork by Zainudden et al., highlighting the utility of specific gamified approaches as wellas learning theories and models applied in gamification studies [24].The effectiveness of games and simulations in teaching and learning depends on thedebriefing that takes place following the activity [30]. The debriefing creates opportunitiesfor reflection and discussion on the impacts of the experience on individuals. This includesthe processes developed during gameplay, clarification of facts, concepts, and principlesutilized, identifying emotions during gameplay (this can affect learning outcomes), andidentifying views formed by participants throughout the experience [22,31]. To achievedesired learning outcomes, games should be motivating, encouraging learners to persis-tently reengage with the content, leading to an unpromoted return to Kolb’s ExperientialLearning Cycle [26,31]. The idea is that the student will showcase desirable emotionalor cognitive reactions in response to feedback from gameplay [27]. Educators play animportant pedagogical role in the implementation of educational games: planning, ori-entation, gameplay, and debriefing [32]. Here, regardless of the effectiveness of gamedesign, educators act as a facilitator working to lead students to content topics, act as atutor, and create opportunities for reflection. Often, “teachable moments” can be key toengaging critical thinking and learning during gameplay, lending to the idea of educatorsas co-learners in the process [33].Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 4 of 441.2. Escape Rooms for Learning in STEMUtilizing games as a means to promote learning and engagement in chemistry is nonew concept [34]. Chemistry games such as The Game of the Name, in which players askquestions to determine the identify of prominent organic chemists, emerged as early as1971 [35]. Since then, chemistry games have become more elaborate, incorporating courselearning objectives into the game design to better tailor to student learning. A list of recentchemistry games, their format (card game, boardgame, online game, etc.), and chemistrytopic(s) can be found in Appendix A.Using escape rooms as learning tools is a more recent emergence in gamified learningfor teaching STEM [36]. A popular global phenomenon, escape rooms consist of a seriesof themed puzzles, riddles, and tactile components that must be solved in order to exitthe room within a set time frame [36]. Before the game begins, teams are introducedto the storyline, safety considerations, and general considerations—how to unlock thevarious lock types, for example. During gameplay, the game master observes players andprovides hints when requested. Common escape room elements include hidden itemsand clues, sound puzzles, light puzzles, math puzzles, word puzzles, ciphers, riddles,electrical current, magnets, jigsaw puzzles, repeating numbers, keys, matching puzzles,physical puzzles, visual design puzzles, maps and coordinates, Sudoku and crosswordpuzzles, and labyrinth puzzles [37]. While not inherently educational, many escape roomsallow participants to leverage prior knowledge in order to complete the tasks within. Forexample, math-themed puzzles will have players solve basic math problems, associatedwith learning in elementary school. Similarly, escape rooms provide a unique tactilecomponent to gameplay in which numerous items within the room can be manipulatedto reveal clues, hidden rooms, and secret compartments. Electrical current puzzles, forexample, require players to place their hands in a specific area in order to complete acircuit and engage a locking mechanism. In the height of their popularity, several at-homeescape games were developed utilizing single-use objects (cutting or folding paper-basedpuzzle components) such as “ESCAPE ROOM: THE GAME” [38]. Other escape gamessuch as “Unlock! Escape Adventures” combine the use of playing cards, maps, and mobileapps to deliver clues, hints, and other content [39]. Due to the breadth of entertainment-focused escape rooms, their tailorable contents, and the intrinsic motivation they create,it is unsurprising to see the rise in development of educational tools reminiscent of thisformat [40–44].Educational escape rooms are uniquely primed for application in STEM classrooms,allowing students to leverage their knowledge of course content as well as technicallaboratory skills in puzzle solution [45]. In many ways, exploring scientific learningthrough an escape room is similar to the research process. Here, the educator takes a siderole in the activity, proving guidance (clues) when requested and students work in teamsto develop their own independent ideas, strategies, and solutions, partaking in activeexperimentation to evaluate theories [41–44,46]. This learning process is highlighted inFigure 2. Educators implement specific course content and gaming characteristics intothe escape activity, and students then participate in a cycle of conceptualization, reflectiveobservation, experimentation, and behavioral self-reflection. Finally, educators perform afinal debriefing, highlighting expected learning outcomes and addressing misconceptionsto solidify student understanding. Escape rooms, in this sense, mimic laboratories creatinga sequence of experiences as a part of a coherent whole to engage in higher learning [47].Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 5 of 44Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 45 Figure 2. The Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle [21] and model of game-based learning [30] in relation to educational escape room games. 2. Chemistry Escape Rooms A 2021 survey of 93 educational escape rooms in STEM showcased that courses fo-cused on medicine (35), chemistry (15), math (13), and computer science (13) had the most developed escape room activities [47]. The review suggested that in order for escape rooms to remain relevant in STEM teaching and learning, activities should be able to be more readily implemented (easily adaptable, less time-consuming, flexible interactivity). Similarly, reviewers highlighted that utilization of current escape rooms should be more systematic to provide a clear overview of available escape activities as well as empirical evidence towards their effectiveness at improving student understanding, motivation, and problem-solving skills [47]. Herein, we examine the landscape of chemistry-focused escape room activities in teaching and learning at post-secondary institutions. In the landscape of advancements in gamified learning for chemistry education, chemistry escape rooms are at the forefront of new developments in educational tools. This active learning technique has been implemented in a variety of ways, from escape rooms which fully immerse students in their interactive puzzles to those administered online. The range of approaches have varying pros and cons to implementation and over-all student learning. The following sections explore not only the styles of escape room puzzles and their content but also their benefits to learning and how student learning is assessed during their administration. This section will outline a diversity of escape room puzzle designs including immer-sive escape rooms (Section 2.1), paper-based puzzles (Section 2.2), Battle Boxes and con-densed escape activities (Section 2.3), and online escape activities (Section 2.4). 2.1. Immersive Escape Rooms The term escape room predominantly elicits imagery of a small team working in a space filled with elaborate, stepwise, thematic puzzles of all varieties to achieve a common goal against the clock [43]. This classic escape room format has been realized in secondary and post-secondary chemistry classrooms to increase student engagement and Figure 2. The Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle [21] and model of game-based learning [30] inrelation to educational escape room games.2. Chemistry Escape RoomsA 2021 survey of 93 educational escape rooms in STEM showcased that coursesfocused on medicine (35), chemistry (15), math (13), and computer science (13) had themost developed escape room activities [47]. The review suggested that in order for escaperooms to remain relevant in STEM teaching and learning, activities should be able to bemore readily implemented (easily adaptable, less time-consuming, flexible interactivity).Similarly, reviewers highlighted that utilization of current escape rooms should be moresystematic to provide a clear overview of available escape activities as well as empiricalevidence towards their effectiveness at improving student understanding, motivation, andproblem-solving skills [47]. Herein, we examine the landscape of chemistry-focused escaperoom activities in teaching and learning at post-secondary institutions.In the landscape of advancements in gamified learning for chemistry education, chem-istry escape rooms are at the forefront of new developments in educational tools. Thisactive learning technique has been implemented in a variety of ways, from escape roomswhich fully immerse students in their interactive puzzles to those administered online. Therange of approaches have varying pros and cons to implementation and overall studentlearning. The following sections explore not only the styles of escape room puzzles andtheir content but also their benefits to learning and how student learning is assessed duringtheir administration.This section will outline a diversity of escape room puzzle designs including immersiveescape rooms (Section 2.1), paper-based puzzles (Section 2.2), Battle Boxes and condensedescape activities (Section 2.3), and online escape activities (Section 2.4).2.1. Immersive Escape RoomsThe term escape room predominantly elicits imagery of a small team working in aspace filled with elaborate, stepwise, thematic puzzles of all varieties to achieve a com-mon goal against the clock [43]. This classic escape room format has been realized insecondary and post-secondary chemistry lassr s to incre se student engagement andEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 6 of 44understanding. Ranging from introductory chemistry content to upper-year analyticalresearch development, this immersive tool is sufficiently flexible to adapt to an instructor’sneeds, providing opportunities for hands-on laboratory-style learning.Participants: 2–10 per room.Time: 60–90 min.Room Requirements: room(s), laboratory.Set-Up Time: hours–days.Cost: $$$.Recommended Implementation: laboratories, tutorials, workshops, outreach events.Subjects: general, analytical (see Appendix A).A chemistry-themed escape room experience, “Escape ClassRoom CSI 1.0”, created byBarbero et al., was featured at the European Researchers’ Night 2017 in Cadiz (Andalusia,Spain) [48]. Participants included undergraduate and graduate students as well as postdoc-toral researchers. A total of 43 participants attempted the activity in groups of six to tenindividuals of varying educational backgrounds. Approximately 50% of teams escapedin the 60 min time frame with 67% of participants rating the experience as difficult/verydifficult. The outreach activity, themed around solving a murder mystery using analyticaltools, featured three scenarios: one in which student teams worked to collect the requiredanalytical instrumentation needed to complete the room, the second a crime scene samplingzone, and the final a forensics laboratory in which the collected samples could be tested(Figure 3). While not all puzzles were chemistry-focused, for example, two locks in thefirst room (scientific police station) required participants to solve a mathematical riddleand attempt a logic game focused on historical scientists, analytical chemistry techniqueswere reflected throughout. Room three, the forensics laboratory, featured two key mockexperiments: (1) toxicological analysis in which students performed a series of acid–basereactions to determine the presence of a “poison” in a mock blood sample and (2) analysisof chromatography–mass spectrometry data to match the poison in the “blood” sample toknown poisons. Unfortunately, little supporting information is provided by the authorsdetailing the set-up, contents, and solutions to each of the puzzles, limiting the use of theactivity in other classrooms.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 45 understandi . i fro introductory chemistry content to upper-year n lytical re-search development, this i ersive t l i ffi i tl fl i l t t to an instructor’s needs, providing opportunities for hands-on laboratory-style learning. Participants: 2–10 per roo . Time: 60–90 min. Roo Requirements: room(s), laboratory. Set-Up Time: hours–days. Cost: $$$. Reco ended Implementation: laboratories, tutorials, workshops, outreach events. Subjects: general, analytical (see ppendix ). A chemistry-themed escape room experience, “Escape ClassRoom CSI 1.0”, created by Barb ro et al., was featured at the European Researchers’ Night 2017 in Cadiz (And -lusia, Spain) [48]. Participants inclu ed undergraduate and graduate stud nts as well as postdocto al re earchers. A total of 43 participants attempted the activity in groups f six to ten individuals of varying educational backgrounds. Approximately 50% of t ams s-caped in the 60 min time frame with 67% of participan s rating the experien e as diffi-cult/very difficult. T e outreach activity, themed around solving a mu der mystery using analytical tools, f atured three sce arios: one in which student teams worked to coll ct the required analytical i strumentati n needed to compl te the room, the s cond a cr me scene sampling zone, and the final forensics laboratory in which the collected samples could be tested (Figure 3). While not all puzzles were ch mist y-focused, for example, wo locks in the first room (sci ntific police station) required participants to solve m themat-ical riddle and attempt a l gic game focused on historical scientists, analytical emistry techniques were reflected thr ughout. Room three, the forensics laboratory, featured two key mock experiments: (1) toxicological analysis in which students performed a series of acid–base reactions to determine the presence of a “poison” in a mock blood sample and (2) analysis of chromatography–mass spectrometry data to match the poison in the “blood” sample to known poisons. Unfortunately, little supporting information is pro-vided by the authors detailing the set-up, contents, and solutions to each of the puzzles, limiting the use of the activity in other classrooms. Figure 3. “Escape ClassRoom CSI 1.0” content layout and analytical puzzles included in area 3 (fo-rensics laboratory); arrows indicate direction of intended movement through the zones [48]. In 2021, Avargil and co-workers reported an immersive chemistry escape room expe-rience for high school students [49]. The complete experience was originally piloted by 12 experienced high school chemistry instructors, with the aim that high school students would be able to utilize the activity following the COVID-19 pandemic. Later in 2022, the experience was implemented as an undergraduate general chemistry learning tool (58 Figure 3. “Escape ClassRoom CSI 1.0” content layout and analytical puzzles included in area 3(forensics laboratory); arrows indicate direction of intended movement through the zones [48].In 2021, Avargil and co-workers reported an immersive chemistry escape room expe-rience for high school students [49]. The complete experience was originally piloted by12 experienced high school chemistry instructors, with the aim that high school studentswould be able to utilize the activity following the COVID-19 pandemic. Later in 2022,the experience was implemented as an undergraduate general chemistry learning tool(58 participants) [50]. The escape room, consisting of four rooms equipped with recordingEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 7 of 44equipment, was established within the Faculty of Education at the Israel Institute of Tech-nology (Haifa, Israel). The activity was designed to provide a complementary teachingtool for basic chemistry concepts, to prepare students for final exams, to practice laboratorytechniques, and to allow students to develop 21st-century skills such as teamwork, lead-ership, and communication [51,52]. Self-described as a “hands-on, heads-on, hearts-on”experience, participants engaged with 19 unique puzzles, including “wet” experimentalactivities mimicking laboratory-style learning [53,54]. Hints are provided by facilitatorsthroughout the experience when participants appeared frustrated or motivation to solvethe puzzle appeared low. One “wet” puzzle (#102) required participants to prepare four so-lutions (aspirin, discovered in another puzzle, sodium bicarbonate, laundry detergent, andmilk), measure the pH of each solution, and organize the solutions in ascending order ofpH. Each sample solution holder is equipped with a radio frequency identification device(RFID) and, when placed in the correct position, triggers an electromagnetic lock to open(Figure 4A).Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 45 participants) [50]. The escape room, consisting of four rooms equipped with recording equipment, was established within the Faculty of Education at the Israel Institute of Tech-nology (Haifa, Israel). The activity was designed to provide a complementary teaching tool for basic chemistry concepts, to prepare students for final exams, to practice labora-tory techniques, and to allow students to develop 21st-century skills such as teamwork, leadership, and communication [51,52]. Self-described as a “hands-on, heads-on, hearts-on” experience, participants engaged with 19 unique puzzles, including “wet” experi-mental activities mimicking laboratory-style learning [53,54]. Hints are provided by facil-itators throughout the experience when participants appeared frustrated or motivation to solve the puzzle appeared low. One “wet” puzzle (#102) required participants to prepare four solutions (aspirin, discovered in another puzzle, sodium bicarbonate, laundry deter-gent, and milk), measure the pH of each solution, and organize the solutions in ascending order of pH. Each sample solution holder is equipped with a radio frequency identifica-tion device (RFID) and, when placed in the correct position, triggers an electromagnetic lock to open (Figure 4A). Figure 4. Example “wet” puzzle experiments from the “Break Dalton’s Code and Escape!” activity. (A). Puzzle #102, ordering samples by increasing pH opens the corresponding lock. (B). Puzzle #103, reacting metal nitrate solutions with metal reagents allows students to rank the reducing abilities of metals and correlate these with a Dalton symbol. (C). Puzzle #106, measuring the con-ductivity of four solutions provides combination for lock [49]. i r . l t l ri ts fr t r lt ’s sca e!” activity.(A). Puzzle #102, ordering samples by increasing pH opens the corresponding lock. (B). Puzzle #103,reacting metal nitrate solutions with metal reagents allows students to rank the reducing abilities ofmetals and correlate these with a Dalton symbol. (C). Puzzle #106, measuring the conductivity offour solutions provides combination for lock [49].Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 8 of 44Puzzle #103, an electrochemical series, considered a high-level knowledge puzzle,challenges participants to determine which metal (Mg, Cu, or Fe) is a stronger reducingagent. Participants are provided with metal strips of Mg and Cu as well as Fe powder.Unknown solutions of M(NO3)2, each with a Dalton symbol corresponding to one of themetals (Figure 4B), are tested with each metal to see if a reaction occurs. A reaction wouldbe indicated by the formation of a gas (bubbles), a color change, or disintegration of themetal strip/powder. Based on these observations, participants will determine that Mg isthe strongest reducing agent, reacting with both Cu(NO3)2 and Fe(NO3)2, followed by Feand Cu, respectively. By determining the reactivity of the metals, participants can assign ametal to each of the Dalton symbols for use in later puzzles.Another “wet” puzzle, #106—electrical conductivity in the coffee corner—requiresstudents to measure the electrical conductivity of four prepared solutions (tea, dark coffee,instant coffee, and instant soup). The solutions are tested using a conductivity meter. Theconductivity is then correlated to a series of LED lights where more LED lights illuminatingcorresponds to higher solution conductivity. By filling out the associated conductivity table(Figure 4C), participants discover the numerical code for the corresponding lock.Despite the complex locking mechanism utilized within the escape room, the “Dal-ton’s Code” activity represents an excellent example of hands-on experimental-focusedpuzzles that can be readily incorporated into a more simplistic room set-up, laboratory, orcondensed escape activity (Section 2.3). Similarly, each of the “wet” puzzles described canbe utilized individually, with many aligning to course content in undergraduate generalchemistry classrooms [55]. The authors provide a detailed overview of puzzle set-up, solu-tions, learning objectives, and prior knowledge requirements, as well as recommendationsfor more simplistic locking mechanisms. Print files for each puzzle are likewise providedfor the interested educator.A pilot of the activity, utilizing low-budget materials in a laboratory setting, was run in2019 for 22 chemistry teachers in groups of 5–6 individuals. On average, teams completedthe activity within 60–90 min. As is the case with most escape rooms, whether educationalor entertainment-based, participants struggled to connect clues to specific puzzle activitieswithout some guidance. For example, educators solving puzzle #106 recognized thatfour solutions must be prepared but not how to use the conductivity measurements todetermine a code for the corresponding lock. Providing more guidance to participants byreducing the number of interactive components and false leads, or coupling the activity toa workbook (see Section 3), helped to reduce participant confusion while still exploringlearning objectives. Following the activity, participants completed a reflective questionnaireto determine the expected impact of this experience on student learning. These resultsindicated that educators believed students would display stronger communication andcollaboration skills and high-order problem solving, as well as increased motivation tolearn the chemistry content covered [49]. This belief was later reflected in undergraduatestudents’ feedback surveys in which group communication and teamwork in problemsolving was most often cited as a tool utilized by student teams to complete the puzzles [50].“Escape the Lab”, designed by Vergne et al., was implemented in an upper-levelinstrumental methods of analysis course, featuring a 12-step solution to escape [56]. Theseries of challenges, tackled by groups of 4–6 over 1 h, were tactfully designed to revisitinstrumental analytical chemistry techniques and concepts students had been exposed to inearlier course content and laboratory sessions. This encompassed an array of spectroscopic,spectrometric, and chromatographic techniques with an overall goal of identifying anunknown compound. Riddles and “search for item” puzzles were limited, ensuringstudents focused on the main puzzles pertaining to utilization of the analytical techniquesrather than wandering the rooms. For example, puzzle A requires students to locate a fauxpop can. Inside the faux can is a sample vial containing an unknown sample (20 mg/Laqueous caffeine solution). A second puzzle revealed a UV-Vis cuvette, a description ofthe Beer’s Law equation, and the molar absorptivity of the unknown liquid, indicatingto students that they must collect an absorption spectrum of the unknown liquid andEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 9 of 44determine the concentration of the sample using a calibration curve (provided). The lasttwo digits of the calculated concentration were used to open a numerical lock (Figure 5A),revealing another unknown sample (0.5%, w/v, ethanol in water) in a gas chromatography(GC) vial and a color-coded key. The key opened the instrumentation room in which theGC was housed. Puzzle B required students to run the unknown GC sample and determinethe retention time in minutes, the first two digits of which were used to open a secondlocked box (Figure 5B). The puzzle solution continued in this manner, allowing students tolikewise utilize their understanding of infrared (IR) spectroscopy.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 45 students that they must collect an absorption spectrum of the unknown liquid and deter-mine the concentration of the sample using a calibration curve (provided). The last two digits of the calculated concentration were used to open a numerical lock (Figure 5A), revealing another unknown sample (0.5%, w/v, ethanol in water) in a gas chromatography (GC) vial and a color-coded key. The key opened the instrumentation room in which the GC was housed. Puzzle B required students to run the unknown GC sample and deter-mine the retention time in minutes, the first two digits of which were used to open a sec-ond locked box (Figure 5B). The puzzle solution continued in this manner, allowing stu-dents to likewise utilize their understanding of infrared (IR) spectroscopy. Figure 5. (A). UV-Vis and (B). gas chromatography puzzles in the “Escape the Lab” activity [56]. The set-up time required for this escape room is similar to a typical analytical chem-istry laboratory. Instructors must prepare standard solutions and generate a calibration curve prior to entering the lab as well as arrange several puzzles and lockboxes around the room. After completion of the activity, students reset the escape room (placing items back in lockboxes, hiding clues) for the following team, minimizing the work required for activity turnover. As a result of this escape room activity, students, as self-reported through a questionnaire, indicated that the experience was not only fun but additionally provided an effective review of key techniques related to the associated course content. While the utilization of the described escape room is limited to analytical laboratories with access to UV-Vis, GC, and FT-IR, the puzzle components requiring the analysis of spectra and corresponding calculations can be readily implemented as a paper-based puzzle. The “Quant Escape Game” (QEG), pioneered by Musgrove et al., was implemented in tandem with an upper-level undergraduate quantitative analysis laboratory class [57]. Uniquely, this game was a central focus of the course, acting as a final project, emphasiz-ing the importance of course content to successful solution of the QEG. The escape room was run during the 3 h laboratory time over the course of four weeks and was designed to accommodate groups of six students. Prior to the escape room experience, students engaged in scaffolded laboratory sessions providing them with the foundational charac-terization skills that would be required for later puzzle solution. The laboratories steadily increased the level of student learning in accordance with Bloom’s taxonomy, with later laboratories mimicking elements of classical research (analyze, compare, evaluate, create) [58,59]. The authors provide an overview of the preparatory laboratory experiments in their supporting information. The QEG experience requires students to use course knowledge of spectroscopic, electrochemical, and titrimetric methodologies. Uniquely, the QEG was designed to allow students to not only solve puzzles related to course content but to design their own exper-imental methods of analysis. The storyline is focused on identifying a copper smuggler Figure 5. (A). UV-Vis and (B). gas chromatography puzzles in the “Escape the Lab” activity [56].The set-up time required for this escape room is similar to a typical analytical chemistrylaboratory. Instructors must prepare standard solutions and generate a calibration curveprior to entering the lab as well as arrange several puzzles and lockboxes around the room.After completion of the activity, students reset the escape room (placing items back inlockboxes, hiding clues) for the following team, minimizing the work required for activityturnover. As a result of this escape room activity, students, as self-reported through aquestionnaire, indicated that the experience was not only fun but additionally providedan effective review of key techniques related to the associated course content. While theutilization of the described escape room is limited to analytical laboratories with accessto UV-Vis, GC, and FT-IR, the puzzle components requiring the analysis of spectra andcorresponding calculations can be readily implemented as a paper-based puzzle.The “Quant Escape Game” (QEG), pioneered by Musgrove et al., was im lementedin tandem with an up er-level undergraduate quantitative analysis laboratory class [57].Uniquely, this g me was a c ntral focus of the course, acting as a final pr ject, empha-sizing the importance of course content to su cessful solution of the QEG. The escaperoom was run during the 3 h laborat ry time over the course of four w eks and wasdesigned to accommodate groups of six students. Prior to the escape room exp r e ce,students engaged in scaffolded laboratory sessions providing them with th foundatio alcharacter zation skills that would be required for later puzzle solution. The laborato iessteadily increa ed the level of student learning in accordance with Bloom’s taxonomy, w thlater laboratories mimicking el ments of classic l r search (analyze, c mpare, evaluate,create) [58,59]. The authors provide an overview of the preparatory laboratory exp rimentsin their supporting information.The QEG experience requires students to use course knowledge of spectroscopic,electrochemical, and titrimetric m thodologies. Uniquely, the QEG was designed to allowstudents to not only solve puzzles related to course content but to design their own experi-mental methods of analysis. The storyline is focused on identifying a copper smuggler whois utilizing chocolate syrup as a transport material. In the first puzzle set, students mustdesign a method to identify which chocolate sample (1 of 3) has been tampered with by ana-Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 10 of 44lyzing the copper content. Students proposed several analytical methods including externalcalibration with atomic adsorption (AA), standard addition with AA, UV-Vis followed byAA, a displacement reaction with a calcium ion-specific electrode (ISE), a quick test with acopper ISE, and colorimetric titration with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Thechoice of analytical method did not affect puzzle solution but rather allowed students toutilize their understanding and confidence with their proposed method to identify thecontaminated sample. In this way, the escape room was designed to reflect the realitiesof conducting real-life research, equipping students with the critical thinking skills neces-sary for future success. While this style of immersive escape room can be time-intensiveand difficult to implement outside of a laboratory, it represents a unique method thatcan be leveraged to allow students to develop research confidence and self-efficacy whileproviding rapid formative feedback (facilitator approval of reasoning and opening locks).Unlike other escape room activities, typically graded on a participation basis, the QEGlab was graded based on completion of the activity. Students were provided with chemistryquestions/prompts in this case. Partial credit was assigned based on the completion ofthe prompts: one complete, 33%; two complete, 66%; all prompts and puzzles complete,100%. To add an element of competition-based learning, the first group to complete theexperience received extra credit. While students felt anxious initially, this dissipated asthe QEG laboratories continued. This problem-based learning technique, as assessed bypre- and post-game surveys, significantly improved students’ perceptions and feelingssurrounding teamwork. Moreover, 100% of students indicated that this activity helpedtheir learning, citing reasons such as greater critical thinking and increased understandingof course content. The increase in student learning is further supported by the difference inclass average on pre-assessment and post-assessment quizzes, where a marked increase intest score average (0 to 1000%) is reported following course completion.“Spectroscopy Unlocked”, an undergraduate escape room activity reviewing classi-cal analytical and spectroscopic techniques, IR and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)spectroscopy, GC, and thin-layer chromatography (TLC), was cocreated by a team oftwo final-year undergraduate students and two faculty members [60]. The activity, aimedat developing skills such as time management, problem solving, teamwork, communica-tion, laboratory techniques, and general subject understanding, was implemented duringa laboratory session (2 h). Prior to the activity, an introductory briefing was performed,informing students of general laboratory procedures, health and safety considerations, andthe storyline for the escape room. Similarly, a debriefing followed the activity in whichfacilitators worked to consolidate student learning, promoting reflective discussions on theproblem-solving process and influences on student understanding (see Figure 2; reflectiveobservations and user judgements and behaviors).The escape room consists of four activity stations: IR spectroscopy, TLC, NMR spec-troscopy, and mass spectrometry. Each station consists of an experiment or task alongside apuzzle to be solved using experimental data. The activities are interrelated with the solutionof station 1 providing key information to solve the puzzle at station 2 and so on. For exam-ple, station 2—thin-layer chromatography—has students analyze a mixture of unknown,colored compounds (Waxoline Victoria Blue, Sudan IV (red), and p-nitroanaline dissolved inacetone) by TLC using several solvent systems (ethyl ethanoate, dichloromethane, toluene).Students must calculate the retention factor (Rf) of each colored compound and arrange theeluents in order of decreasing polarity (Figure 6A). Students communicate their findings tothe facilitator. If correct, the students are provided with a “letter cross” puzzle featuringtwo perpendicular lines of numbered letters and a series of number combinations. Byrelating the number combinations to the letter cross, students uncover the clue “They saythe most polar is purple”, indicating that a purple box located in the room contains theinformation required to begin the next station. In station 3—NMR spectroscopy—studentsare provided with an alphabet wheel, a binary decoding book, seven unassigned NMRspectra, and the names of the compounds to which the spectra are related (Figure 6B). Thenames of the compounds are doubly encrypted, meaning that students must first translateEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 11 of 44a series of binary numbers into a capital letter, then students must use the alphabet wheelto relate the capital letter to a lowercase letter (the true letter in the name). Once the namesof the compounds are deciphered, students must match the chemical to the correspondingNMR spectrum. Again, students provide their answers to a facilitator who will in turnprovide them with a key to access the next station.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 45 the room contains the information required to begin the next station. In station 3—NMR spectroscopy—students are provided with an alphabet wheel, a binary decoding book, seven unassigned NMR spectra, and the names of the compounds to which the spectra are related (Figure 6B). The names of the compounds are doubly encrypted, meaning that students must first translate a series of binary numbers into a capital letter, then students must use the alphabet wheel to relate the capital letter to a lowercase letter (the true letter in the name). Once the names of the compounds are deciphered, students must match the chemical to the corresponding NMR spectrum. Again, students provide their answers to a facilitator who will in turn provide them with a key to access the next station. Figure 6. “Spectroscopy Unlocked” (A). thin-layer chromatography station and (B). NMR spectros-copy station[60]. A mobile escape room, developed by Peleg et al., was implemented at the secondary school level (grades 11 and 12) and featured 13 distinct puzzles for student teams to inter-act with [61]. These puzzles, designed to support four groups of 4–6 students, were com-pleted within 40–60 min. The puzzles consist of both “wet” (4) and “dry” (9) activities, ranging in complexity. The activities are non-linear and span varying levels of knowledge, giving students multiple avenues for successful completion and “escape”. The instructor labor required to run this escape room was lessened as teachers received pre-assembled escape room kits. Teachers similarly received 2 h of training several weeks before the ac-tivity was run to learn about the room itself as well as associated set-up, operation, and take-down. The activity requires 3–4 h to set up the room, 1.5 h for the complete escape room experience (introduction, activity, and debriefing), and 2 h for take-down. This time requirement is reflective of the immersive experience, complete with thematic elements such as caution tape and signs. The puzzles included were designed to challenge students’ knowledge of acid–base chemistry, balancing chemical equations, identifying solution pH, and neutralizing a mystery solution. For example, a paper-based puzzle, pH enve-lope, provides students with three chemical formulas (1 M HBr, H2O, and 1 M KOH). Using a clue on the front of the envelope (an arrow labeled “pH” with 14 at the end of the arrow), students must organize the chemicals in order of increasing basicity to reveal the combination. The “wet” puzzles have students perform simple reactions in order to reveal corresponding combinations or keys. For example, puzzle 5, the pink jar, has students add Figure 6. “Spectroscopy Unlocked” (A). thin-layer chromatography station and (B). NMR spec-troscopy station [60].A mobile escape roo , developed by Peleg et al., was implemented at the secondaryschool level (grades 11 and 12) and featured 13 distinct puzzles for student teams tointeract with [61]. These puzzles, designed to support four groups of 4–6 students, werecompleted within 40–60 min. The puzzles consist of both “wet” (4) and “dry” (9) activities,ranging in complexity. The activities are non-linear and span varying levels of knowledge,giving students multiple avenues for successful completion and “escape”. The instructorlabor required to run this escape room was lessened as teachers received pre-assembledescape room kits. Teachers similarly received 2 h of training several weeks before theactivity was run to learn about the room itself as well as associated set-up, operation,and take-down. The activity requires 3–4 h to set up the room, 1.5 h for the completeescape room experience (introduction, activity, and debriefing), and 2 h for take-down.This time requirement is reflective of the immersive experience, complete with thematicelements such as caution tape and signs. The puzzles included were designed to challengestudents’ knowledge of acid–base chemistry, balancing chemical equations, identifyingsolution pH, and neutralizing a mystery solution. For example, a paper-based puzzle,pH envelope, provides students with three chemical formulas (1 M HBr, H2O, and 1 MKOH). Using a clue on the front of the envelope (an arrow labeled “pH” with 14 at theend of the arrow), students must organize the chemicals in order of increasing basicityto reveal the combination. The “wet” puzzles have students perform simple reactionsin order to reveal corresponding combinations or keys. For example, puzzle 5, the pinkjar, has students add an acid sample (revealed in an earlier puzzle) to a jar containingbase and phenolphthalein labeled “needs acid”. Adding the acid neutralizes the solution,changing the color to clear, and revealing a code at the bottom of the jar (Figure 7A). Thispuzzle requires low chemical knowledge but can be exciting for students to perform dueto the discovery of the hidden combination. A similar puzzle, release the key, featuresEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 12 of 44a key placed in a Styrofoam ball inside of a sealed jar with a small opening at the top.Students must add acetone (revealed in an earlier puzzle) to dissolve the Styrofoam balland release the key (Figure 7B). Unfortunately, three of the “wet” puzzles described donot require specific chemical knowledge to complete the activity; however, they provideexciting methods for clue discovery and puzzle solution (e.g., making conductive dough tocomplete a circuit). The benefits of the experience were apparent in feedback collected fromstudents. The results indicated that students felt they employed both course content andteamwork for successful completion of puzzles. Additionally, students reported they werefully engaged in the activity, creating an environment for personal growth and learning.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 45 an acid sample (revealed in an earlier puzzle) to a jar containing base and phenolphthalein labeled “needs acid”. Adding the acid neutralizes the solution, changing the color to clear, and revealing a code at the bottom of the jar (Figure 7A). This puzzle requires low chemical knowledge but can be exciting for students to perform due to the discovery of the hidden combination. A similar puzzle, release the key, features a key placed in a Styrofoam ball inside of a sealed jar with a small opening at the top. Students must add acetone (revealed in an earlier puzzle) to dissolve the Styrofoam ball and release the key (Figure 7B). Unfor-tunately, three of the “wet” puzzles described do not require specific chemical knowledge to complete the activity; however, they provide exciting methods for clue discovery and puzzle solution (e.g., making conductive dough to complete a circuit). The benefits of the experience were apparent in feedback collected from students. The results indicated that students felt they employed both course content and teamwork for successful completion of puzzles. Additionally, students reported they were fully engaged in the activity, creat-ing an environment for personal growth and learning. Figure 7. Select “wet” puzzle examples from the mobile escape room described by Peleg et al. (A). Puzzle 5—pink jar. (B). Puzzle 7—release the key; arrows indicate order of stepwise interaction with puzzles [61]. The above examples provide insight into the plethora of ways in which immersive escape rooms can be utilized in chemistry classrooms to increase student learning. These rooms can be leveraged to not only increase comprehension and enjoyment of course con-tent but to develop key laboratory skills through active experimentation [49,50,56,57,60]. Rather than following a prescriptive procedure, developing laboratory skills through puz-zle solution can be used to mimic real-world research practices in which the outcomes of experimentation are unknown, and data must be collected to confirm research postula-tions [57]. In the examples above, we can see two common themes emerging in the design of immersive escape rooms: puzzle solution that requires data collection to determine a lock combination [49,56,57] and more traditional laboratory experimentation paired with “classical” puzzle activities [37] to unlock new experiences [48,60]. Both methods are valid and have been shown to increase student learning and motivation, although, as men-tioned by Vergne et al., it is important to balance traditional escape room puzzles (riddles, codes, “search for” tasks) with puzzle solutions related to course learning objectives [56]. The versatility of immersive escape rooms is similarly reflected in the varying com-plexities of room set-up and total activity time. This flexibility allows educators to simplify escape room immersion or complexity to fit their instructional needs. For example, many long-format immersive escape rooms can be truncated by using fewer puzzles. We can likewise take inspiration from these total escape rooms to develop smaller puzzles that can be implemented in more classical classroom formats. Regardless of the complexity, or commitment to immersion, these escape rooms garner positive student feedback and Figure 7. Select “wet” puzzle examples from the mobile escape room described by Peleg et al.(A). Puzzle 5—pink jar. (B). Puzzle 7—release the key; arrows indicate order of stepwise interactionwith puzzles [61].The above examples provide insight into the plethora of ways in which immersiveescape rooms can be utilized in chemistry classrooms to increase student learning. Theserooms can be leveraged to not only increase comprehension and enjoyment of coursecontent but to develop key laboratory skills through active experimentation [49,50,56,57,60].Rather than following a prescriptive procedure, developing laboratory skills through puz-zle solution can be used to mimic real-world research practices in which the outcomes ofexperimentation are unknown, and data must be collected to confirm research postula-tions [57]. In the examples above, we can see two common themes emerging in the designof immersive escape rooms: puzzle solution that requires data collection to determine alock combination [49,56,57] and more traditional laboratory experimentation paired with“classical” puzzle activities [37] to unlock new experiences [48,60]. Both methods are validand have been shown to increase student learning and motivation, although, as mentionedby Vergne et al., it is important to balance traditional escape room puzzles (riddles, codes,“search for” tasks) with puzzle solutions related to course learning objectives [56].The versatility of immersive escape rooms is similarly reflected in the varying com-plexities of room set-up and total activity time. This flexibility allows educators to simplifyescape room immersion or complexity to fit their instructional needs. For example, manylong-format i ersive escape rooms can be truncated by using fewer puzzles. We canlikewise take inspiration from these total escape rooms to develop smaller puzzles thatcan be impl mented in more classical classroom f r ats. R gardless of the complexity,or com itment to immersion, these escape rooms garner positive tudent feedback andntribute to student learning. Post-a tivity assessme ts indicat students l a sense ofimproved self-efficacy and research confidence [57,62], express improved critical thinkingskills, and have increased interest in chemistry as a whole [48,50]. Moreover, administra-tors of these escape rooms note the activities encouraged teamwork, analysis capabilities,critical discussion of results, and problem solving [49]. Additional examples of interactivechemistry escape rooms are provided in Appendix A, Table A1.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 13 of 442.2. Paper-Based PuzzlesA widely used derivative of escape rooms are paper-based puzzles. In contrast toimmersive escape rooms, this educational tool can be used to promote critical thinkingand team building with less labor for activity set-up, instruction, and take-down on thepart of the instructor. As in the name, these escape rooms rely primarily on logic-basedpuzzles and activities rather than employing “wet” lab techniques. This allows for ease ofimplementation into more classical, high-enrolment, lecture-focused classroom set-ups.Participants: 2–8 per puzzle set.Time: 20–60 min.Room Requirements: Desks, tables.Set-Up Time: 5–20 min.Cost: $.Recommended Implementation: lectures, tutorials, workshops.Subjects: general, medicinal, green, organic, polymers (see Appendix A).Perhaps one of the better-known examples of escape room puzzle activities developedfor teaching undergraduate chemistry, “Escape Classroom: The Leblanc Process”, createdby Dietrich, was used with high school and undergraduate students [63]. Groups of5–7 students were given 1 h to complete three “enigma sheets” which require use of theperiodic table, balancing chemical equations, and determining a missing synthetic step. Thepuzzles are centered around the Leblanc process and walk students through the scientificmethod as used by Nicolas Leblanc [64]. Enigma Sheet 2, for example, requires students tobalance the formula for the formation of sodium carbonate and calcium sulfide (Figure 8A).Enigma Sheet 3 requires students to choose the synthetic tools required for each step of theLeblanc process where each reaction tool is assigned a corresponding letter to be utilizedwith an alphabet lock (Figure 8B). While introducing simplistic learning objectives, thisactivity highlights the ease at which chemistry content can be adapted to an escape roomformat. All of the necessary equipment to administer this activity can be printed and easilypurchased, which minimizes cost and labor on the instructor’s behalf. Similarly, this activityis easily modifiable and could be used to highlight various famous chemical processes orhistorical figures to emphasize the applications of chemistry to students. After performingthe activity, participants agreed that this tool promoted team building, increased motivation,and improved students’ communication skills.Ang et al. describe a physical and digital escape room for teaching chemical bondingin a first-year general chemistry course [65]. The activity was originally designed to beimplemented in an active learning space (tables, movement around the room); however, itwas translated to be an online escape room due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The originalactivity featured five puzzles to be solved by groups of eight students. These interconnectedgames were designed to deepen students’ understanding of chemical bonding and tookon average 20–25 min for groups to complete and reset the puzzles. Within the groupsof eight, students are further divided into pairs, and each pair is assigned one of the firstfour puzzles in the series to solve. Each of the four puzzles provides a number to be usedon a combination lock, revealing the final puzzle. Each student pair is provided with asuperhero avatar alongside the storyline for the escape room containing a cipher clue. Thepuzzles described are mainly paper-based for implementation in a decorated room. Thesewere translated into an online format using Google Forms. The paper-based puzzles aredescribed herein. Puzzle 1 challenges students to apply their understanding of moleculardipoles (Figure 9).Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 14 of 44Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 45 puzzles are described herein. Puzzle 1 challenges students to apply their understanding of molecular dipoles (Figure 9). Figure 8. Example enigma sheets from “Escape Classroom: The Leblanc Process”: (A). balancing the reaction for the formation of black ash (sodium carbonate and calcium sulfide); (B). reaction condi-tions puzzle; arrows indicate lock code determined from puzzle solution [63]. Figure 9. Puzzles 1 (molecular dipole) and 2 (bonding interactions) developed for the superhero-themed escape room by Ang et al [65]. Here, students are provided with nine chemical structures alongside a “North Pole” diorama and must determine the direction of molecule dipole. The diorama provides stu-dents with directions of a pole (in this case, north) and students are to determine how many of their nine structures have a molecular dipole in that direction. Once students determine that four structures point in the northern direction, they have solved the puzzle. Puzzle 2 is focused on determining the strength of different bonding interactions (ionic, London dispersion, hydrogen bonding, and dipole–dipole interactions). Students are pro-vided with small packages labeled with each of the bonding interactions. Sealed inside of the packages are magnets of varying strength. Students can use the packages to lift paper-clips; the number of paperclips the package can hold is related to the strength of the inter-action. When the strongest bonding interaction is determined, the number of letters used to spell the name of the interaction corresponds to the combination number (e.g., ionic = 5). Other puzzle themes include relative bond strengths of metallic, covalent, and ionic bonds (puzzle 3) and terminology relevant to chemical bonding (puzzle 4). The final puz-zle, completed collaboratively, asks students to determine the presence and relative xa ple enigma sh ets from “Escape Classroom: The Leblanc Process”: (A). bala cingthe reaction for the formation of black ash (sodium carbonate and calcium sulfide); (B). reactionconditions puzzle; arrows indicate lock code determined from puzzle solution [63].duc. Sci. 2024, 14, x F I 14 of 45 l s r scri r i . l c ll s st ts t l t ir rst i f l c l r i l s ( i r ). i re 8. xa le e i a s eets fr “ sca e lassr : e e la c r cess”: ( ). ala ci t e reacti f r t e f r ati f lac as (s i car ate a calci s lfi e); ( ). reacti c i-ti s zzle; arr s i icate l c c e eter i e fr zzle s l ti [63]. i re 9. zzles 1 ( lec lar i le) a 2 ( i i teracti s) e el e f r t e s er er -t e e esca e r et al [65]. r , st ts r r i it i c ic l str ct r s l si rt l i r st t r i t ir cti f l c l i l . i r r i s st -ts it ir cti s f l (i t is c s , rt ) st ts r t t r i f t ir i str ct r s l c l r i l i t t ir cti . c st ts t r i t t f r str ct r s i t i t rt r ir cti , t s l t l . l is f c s t r i i t str t f i r t i i t r cti s (i ic, is rsi , r i , i l i l i t r cti s). t ts r r -i it s ll c s l l it c f t i i t r cti s. l i si f t c s r ts f r i str t . t ts c s t c s t lift r-cli s; t r f rcli s t c c l is r l t t t str t f t i t r-cti . t str st i i t r cti is t r i , t r f l tt rs s t s ll t f t i t r cti c rr s s t t c i ti r ( . ., i ic ). t r l t s i cl r l ti str t s f t llic, c l t, i ic s ( l ) t r i l r l t t c ic l i ( l ). fi l -l , c l t c ll r ti l , s s st ts t t r i t r s c r l ti .the e esca e roo by ng et al [65].e e, e a e ov e e e a e a o g e a “ o o e”d o a a and ust determine the direction of molecule dipole. The diorama providesstudents with directions of a pole (in this case, north) and students are o de e ne hoany of thei nine structures have a olecular dipole in that direction. On e studentdetermine that four tru ture point in the northern dire tion, they have olved the puzzle.Puzzle 2 is focused on determining the strength of different bonding interactions (ionic,London dispersion, hydrogen bonding, and dipole–dipole interactions). Students areprovided with small packages labeled with each of the bonding interactions. Sealed insideof the packages are magnets of varying strength. Students can use the packages to liftpaperclips; the number of paperclips the package can hold is related to the strength of theinteraction. When the strongest bonding interaction is determined, the number of lettersused to spell the name of the interaction corresponds to the combination number (e.g.,ionic = 5). Other puzzle themes include relative bond strengths of metallic, covalent, andionic bonds (puzzle 3) and terminology relevant to chemical bonding (puzzle 4). The finalpuzzle, completed collaboratively, asks students to determine the presence and relativestrength of hydrogen bonds. Because each student pair only interacts with one puzzle,authors suggest providing students with copies of the other puzzles following completionof the experience.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 15 of 44Each puzzle makes use of boxes with supplies including magnets, safety pins, ablack light, and a crossword puzzle, amongst others. The total cost reported for thisescape room is ~USD 250. While the authors drive home the importance of the immersiveatmosphere (decorations), the scene is not required to solve any of the puzzles describedand therefore could be readily adapted to more lecture-hall-style learning spaces. Theease of this implementation is reflected in the transfer of the escape room puzzles to anonline format.Doughty describes the development and implementation of “Project: Lockbox”, anescape activity for teaching general chemistry content which was later expanded to includeconcepts such as equilibrium, gas law, thermodynamics calculations, point groups, andreaction types [66]. This activity was designed with the intention of offering students,and educators, access to the teaching and learning benefits of escape-style puzzles whileminimizing the workload associated with tailoring and implementing these initiatives.The experience was run during the discussion sections of a first-year general chemistrycourse; the classroom was divided into six teams of 2–3 students each. Each member ofa team was given the same worksheet, consisting of four questions, and students wereinstructed to work on problems independently but come to an agreement on a problemprior to moving on to the next one. Teams had distinct worksheets which covered oneof the above-mentioned topics in a given discussion section and were given 40 min tocomplete the activity. Following the successful solution of all four questions on a givenworksheet, a team would then use these answers to determine the combination required toopen their respective padlock on the lockbox (Figure 10). Worksheets were labeled A–Fand corresponded to labeled locks on the lockbox which was placed at the center of theclassroom. As such, the lockbox could only be opened once all six teams had successfullycompleted their worksheets, unveiling prizes inside the box.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 45 strength of hydrogen bonds. Because each student pair only interacts with one puzzle, authors suggest providing students with copies of the other puzzles following completion of the experience. Each puzzle makes use of boxes with supplies including magnets, safety pins, a black light, and a crossword puzzle, amongst others. The total cost reported for this escape room is ~USD 250. While the authors drive home the importance of the immersive atmosphere (decorations), the scene is not required to solve any of the puzzles described and therefore could be readily adapted to more lecture-hall-style learning spaces. The ease of this im-plementation is reflected in the transfer of the escape room puzzles to an online format. Doughty describes the development and implementation of “Project: Lockbox”, an escape activity for teaching general chemistry content which was later expanded to in-clude concepts such as equilibrium, gas law, thermodynamics calculations, point groups, and reaction types [66]. This activity was designed with the intention of offering students, and educators, access to the teaching and learning benefits of escape-style puzzles while minimizing the workload associated with tailoring and implementing these initiatives. The experience was run during the discussion sections of a first-year general chemistry course; the classroom was divided into six teams of 2–3 students each. Each member of a team was given the same worksheet, consisting of four questions, and students were in-structed to work on problems independently but come to an agreement on a problem prior to moving on to the next one. Teams had distinct worksheets which covered one of the above-mentioned topics in a given discussion section and were given 40 min to complete the activity. Following the successful solution of all four questions on a given worksheet, a team would then use these answers to determine the combination required to open their respective padlock on the lockbox (Figure 10). Worksheets were labeled A–F and corre-sponded to labeled locks on the lockbox which was placed at the center of the classroom. As such, the lockbox could only be opened once all six teams had successfully completed their worksheets, unveiling prizes inside the box. Figure 10. Selected puzzles from “Project: LockBox”. The gas law worksheet (left) and point group worksheet (right) [66]. The worksheets consisted of both qualitative and quantitative problems pertinent to a given review topic. When answering qualitative questions, worksheets included either a numbered answer bank or multiple choice. As such, the correct answer to these ques-tions corresponded to one digit on the physical lock. The point group worksheet em-ployed this technique and presented students with structures which, when associated with the correct point group, provided a padlock digit (Figure 10 (right)). To answer quan-titative questions, students were provided with a “hangman-style” answer guide indicat-ing which digit corresponded to a padlock digit upon its solution. The gas law worksheet utilized this method of puzzle solution and primarily featured questions about partial pressure determination (Figure 10 (left)). All supplies needed to construct the lockbox can be purchased online (lockbox and padlocks), totaling ~USD 70, and this box can be Figure 10. Selected puzzles from “Project: LockBox”. The gas law worksheet (left) and point groupworksheet (right) [66].The worksheets consisted of both qualitative and quantitative problems pertinent to agiven review topic. When answering qualitative questions, worksheets included either anumbered answer bank or multipl choice. As such, the c rrect answer to these quest onscorresponded to one digit n the physical lock. The point group worksheet employ dthis te hnique and prese te students wit structures w ich, when associated with thecorrect point group, provi ed a padlock digit (Figure 10 (right)). To ans er qu ntitativequestions, students were provided with “hangman-s yle” answer guide indicating whichd gi corresponded to a padlock digit upon its solution. The gas law worksheet utilizedthis metho of puzzle s lution and primarily featured questions about partial pressurdetermination (Figure 10 (left)). All supplies needed to construct the lock x can bepurchas d online (lockbox and padlocks), totaling ~USD 70, and this box can b repurposedmany times for use across multiple classrooms or with different worksheets. While studentfeedback reported high levels of enjoyment and greater mastery of the material reviewed,Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 16 of 44often there was significant pressure placed on the last team to finish. To mitigate this, andprevent high-stress situations, it is recommended that students who finish their worksheetsearlier are given another worksheet to complete during activity time, or that these studentsbe distributed amongst the slower teams to convey their understanding of the material inhelping the final teams succeed.Recent publication by Clapson et al. describes a paper-based escape room developedfor introducing concepts of sustainable development and green chemistry to early-careerchemistry professionals at the 2024 Canadian Chemistry Conference and Exhibition [67].Participants took approximately 20 min to complete the activity, requiring minimal hintsfrom facilitators. The puzzles explore the synthesis, and later depolymerization, of a seriesof bio-derived polymers as sustainable plastic alternatives. Puzzle 1 features a series of rid-dles to which participants must match the corresponding bio-based starting material (corn,petroleum, sugar cane, crab (chitin)). Each material has a corresponding number, leadingparticipants to open the correct paper file and look under a table to find additional materialsfor puzzle 2. Puzzle 2 asks participants to answer a series of questions related to greenchemistry metrics comparing petroleum/fossil fuel, hybrid, and biological feedstock-basedpolymers; each polymer chosen corresponds to a combination number. Finally, puzzle3 compares the life cycle analysis of two poly(ethylene terephthalate) depolymerizationcatalysts. Participants are provided with a corkboard labeled with different green metrics,yarn, and a puzzle key. Using the life cycle analysis, participants compare the green metricsfor each system, selecting which reaction is greener to provide a final design in the yarn(Figure 11).Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 45 repurposed many times for use across multiple classrooms or with different worksheets. While student feedback reported high levels of enjoyment and greater mastery of the ma-terial reviewed, often there was significant pressure placed on the last team to finish. To mitigate this, and prevent high-stress situations, it is recommended that students who finish their worksheets earlier are given another worksheet to complete during activity time, or that these students be distributed amongst the slower teams to convey their un-derstanding of the material in helping the final teams succeed. Recent publication by Clapson et al. describes a paper-based escape room developed for introducing concepts of sustainable development and green chemistry to early-career chemistry professionals at the 2024 Canadian Chemistry Conference and Exhibition [67]. Participants took approximately 20 min to complete the activity, requiring minimal hints from facilitators. The puzzles explore the synthesis, and later depolymerization, of a series of bio-derived polymers as sustainable plastic alternatives. Puzzle 1 features a series of riddles to which participants must match the corresponding bio-based starting material (corn, petroleum, sugar cane, crab (chitin)). Each material has a corresponding number, leading participants to open the correct paper file and look under a table to find additional materials for puzzle 2. Puzzle 2 asks participants to answer a series of questions related to green chemistry metrics comparing petroleum/fossil fuel, hybrid, and biological feed-stock-based polymers; each polymer chosen corresponds to a combination number. Fi-nally, puzzle 3 compares the life cycle analysis of two poly(ethylene terephthalate) depol-ymerization catalysts. Participants are provided with a corkboard labeled with different green metrics, yarn, and a puzzle key. Using the life cycle analysis, participants compare the green metrics for each system, selecting which reaction is greener to provide a final design in the yarn (Figure 11). Figure 11. Life cycle analysis puzzle comparing two synthetic routes for the depolymerization of poly(ethylene terephthalate). GWP = global warming potential (kg CO2 equiv.), IR = ionizing radia-tion (kBq Co-60 equiv.), LU = land use (m2a crop equiv.), Terr. E. = terrestrial ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DCM) [67]. Overall, paper-based escape room activities represent an easily implemented gami-fied learning tool for variable class sizes. The ease of development and implementation is clear, requiring little room set-up or space to complete the activities. Similarly, the length of time to complete the activities can be largely reduced compared to immersive escape Figure 11. if l l sis puzzle co paring two synthetic routes for the depolymerizationof poly(ethylene terephthalate). GWP = global warming potential (kg CO2 equiv.), IR = ionizingradiation (kBq Co-60 equiv.), LU = land use (m2a crop equiv.), Terr. E. = terrestrial ecotoxicity (kg1,4-DCM) [67].Overall, paper-based escape room activities represent an easily implemented gamifiedlearning tool for variable class sizes. The ease of development and implementatio is clear,requiring little room set-up or space to complete the activities. Similarly, the lengt of timet co plete the ac iviti s an b largely reduced compared to immersive escape rooms,as no active experimentation is required, and numerous groups can solve the puzzlesin tandem. However, many current examples of paper-based puzzles do not engagestudents in high levels of learning (see Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning), focusing ratherEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 17 of 44on the recall of course material to describe, compare, or explain puzzle concepts [42,44,47].The careful design of puzzle content and questions can tailor learning to better engagestudents in the analysis and expansion of course knowledge, allowing students to defend,integrate, and critique content—all skills associated with higher learning [1]. Methods todesign puzzle materials are further explored in Section 3. While not offering the sameimmersive atmosphere as the full escape rooms described previously, paper-based puzzlesstill result in positive impacts on student learning, increasing engagement, teamwork,and communication by offering a low-cost entry point for educators to access a new andenriching student experience.2.3. Battle Boxes and Condensed Escape ActivitiesWhile fully immersive escape rooms facilitate deep learning and understanding ofconcepts, providing hands-on experience with chemistry content, they require significantlabor and expenses by the instructor to prepare and facilitate [42,44,47,68]. On the otherhand, paper-based escape rooms are more easily accessible to educators, can accommodatelarger classes of students, and can similarly increase student engagement; however, theylack tactile elements which further promote deeper learning. Battle Boxes and condensedescape activities offer a middle ground, including tactile experience while requiring lessset-up by facilitators. These escape games employ many of the same tactile elements as animmersive escape room, as well as paper-based logic puzzles, but are designed to be mobileto minimize set-up and take-down. Many of the previously highlighted escape rooms donot include adaptations to improve mobility and ease of implementation in large classrooms.As such, the subsequent development of explicitly mobile, tactile, cost-effective, escaperooms serves to expand on this need, allowing for wider classroom applications. BattleBoxes and condensed escape activities are comparatively new to the field of educationalescape rooms. This section explores the few examples available, highlighting a new avenueto educational escape room development.Participants: 2–4 per puzzle set.Time: 20–60 min.Room Requirements: tables.Set-Up Time: 5–20 min.Cost: $$.Recommended Implementation: laboratories, tutorials, workshops, outreach events.Subjects: general, organic, polymers (see Appendix A).The term Battle Box is used to describe a mobile puzzle unit which applies concepts ofcompetition-based learning [69]. A Battle Box is a puzzle box, the size of a small shelvingunit, which contains four escape room puzzles per side [69]. Each side of the Battle Boxcontains the same puzzles, often in the same order, allowing groups of students to competewith one another in the completion of the puzzles within a specific time frame. The firstpuzzle is located in an open compartment at the top left-hand side of the Battle Box. Eachpuzzle compartment contains all the information (clues and storyline) and materials tosolve the puzzle. The solution to puzzle 1 opens a combination lock allowing studentsaccess to puzzle 2 (top right-hand side of the Battle Box unit). Puzzle solution continuesclockwise around the Battle Box with the final combination (puzzle 4) opening a small,locked box located on the top of the Battle Box. The small, locked box typically containsprizes such as a congratulatory message, bonus marks, or candy.Similarly, condensed escape activities (CEAs), often contained within small boxes orTupperware containers, consist of 3–4 puzzles with all supplies for each puzzle providedto the student immediately. Battle Boxes and CEAs often contain scaffolded puzzlesdeveloped under a common theme. Here, puzzles must be solved in a specific order,in which learnings achieved from earlier puzzle solution(s) may be leveraged in laterpuzzles. This scaffolded learning, featuring a background storyline, is reflective of manyimmersive escape rooms [42,44]. Battle Boxes and CEAs may not always include puzzlesfeaturing “wet” experimentation, requiring laboratory space and MSDS considerations,Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 18 of 44however all puzzles considered in this category do feature tactile components, mockexperimental results, and visuals. For example, the “ChemEscape General Chemistry”Battle Box (Figure 12) developed by Clapson et al. features puzzles that can be implementedoutside of a laboratory setting as they utilize household materials [55]. In one puzzle,students prepare a working water-based electrochemical cell with Zn and Cu electrodes(active experimentation), which is utilized to light up an LED panel, light by light, revealingthe lock combination. Alternatively, in a second puzzle, students analyze mock TLC platesby visualizing them with a UV flashlight (mock experiment). Students are provided with ariddle requiring them to select the correct combination numbers from the TLC plates usingthe relative retention factor (Rf) values of the chemical unknowns. The authors proposedaltering the TLC plate puzzle to be an active experiment by allowing students to prepareand run their own TLC plates using chemical unknowns. However, for safety reasons, thislimits applications of the puzzle to laboratory settings.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 45 which learnings achieved from earlier puzzle solution(s) may be leveraged in later puz-zles. This scaffolded learning, featuring a background storyline, is reflective of many im-mersive escape rooms [42,44]. Battle Boxes and CEAs may not always include puzzles featuring “wet” experimentation, requiring laboratory space and MSDS considerations, however all puzzles considered in this category do feature tactile components, mock ex-perimental results, and visuals. For example, the “ChemEscape General Chemistry” Battle Box (Figure 12) developed by Clapson et al. features puzzles that can be implemented outside of a laboratory setting as they utilize household materials [55]. In one puzzle, stu-dents prepare a working water-based electrochemical cell with Zn and Cu electrodes (ac-tive experimentation), whic is utilized to light up an LED panel, light by light, revealing the lock combination. Alternatively, in a second puzzle, students analyze mock TLC plates by visualizi t it fl li t ri ent). t ents are provided with a ri dle requ ring them to select the correct comb nation numbers from the TLC plates using the r lative retention factor (Rf) values of the chemical unk owns. The authors pro-pos d altering the TLC plate puzzle to be an active experiment by allowing tudents to prepare and run their own TLC plates using chemical unknowns. How ver, for safety reasons, this limits applications of the puzzle to laboratory settings. Figure 12. “ChemEscape Battle Box” featuring general chemistry puzzles: puzzle 2: zinc/copper wa-ter cell (right) and puzzle 4: thin-layer chromatography (left) [55]. The use of the Battle Box framework has since been expanded upon by Clapson et al. to include puzzles focused on polymer chemistry in “ChemEscape: Polymer Chemistry”; in [70], it has been applied as on outreach tool as well as a learning activity in a second-year materials chemistry course, redox and thermodynamics (general chemistry) in “ChemEscape: Redox and Thermodynamics”; in [55], it was developed for applications in a first-year general chemistry tutorial and organic chemistry in “ChemEscape: Organic Synthesis”; and in [71], common introductory organic reactions (substitution and elimi-nation) are explored alongside IR and NMR spectroscopy. Examples of the puzzles’ con-tents are described below. “ChemEscape: Polymer Chemistry” (Figure 13), applied in a second-year materials chemistry for engineers course, focused on developing students understanding of poly-mer structure–property relationships including tacticity, elasticity, and hydrophobicity [70]. Puzzle 1: tacticity, provided students with a series of polymer fragments as well as a visual clue displaying the functional group pattern for isotactic, syndiotactic, and atactic polymers. The fragments can be combined using Velcro attachments to form the three dif-ferent polymer tacticity patterns, hung from two hooks on the side of the Battle Box, and their strength was tested using sandbag weights. The polymer tacticity patterns are then rated strongest to weakest, revealing the lock combination. Puzzle 3: hydrophobicity, in comparison, requires students to perform a small “wet” experiment. Here, students are Figure 12. “ChemEscape Battle Box” featuring general chemistry puzzles: puzzle 2: zinc/copperwater cell (right) and puzzle 4: thin-layer chromatography (left) [55].The use of the Battle Box framework has since been expanded upon by Clapsonet al. to include puzzles focused on polymer chemistry in “ChemEscape: Polymer Chem-istry”; in [70], it has been applied as on outreach tool as well as a learning activity in asecond-year materials chemistry course, redox and thermodynamics (general chemistry)in “ChemEscape: Redox and Thermodynamics”; in [55], it was developed for applicationsin a first-year general chemistry tutorial and organic chemistry in “ChemEscape: OrganicSynthesis”; and in [71], common introductory organic reactions (substitution and elimina-tion) are explored alongside IR and NMR spectroscopy. Examples of the puzzles’ contentsare described below.“ChemEscape: Polymer Chemistry” (Figure 13), applied in a second-year materialschemistry for engineers course, focused on developing students understanding of polymerstructure–property relationships including tacticity, elasticity, and hydrophobicity [70].Puzzle 1: tacticity, provided students with a series of polymer fragments as well as avisual clue displaying the functional group pattern for isotactic, syndiotactic, and atacticpolymers. The fragments can be combined using Velcro attachments to form the threedifferent polymer tacticity patterns, hung from two hooks on the side of the Battle Box,and their strength was tested using sandbag weights. The polymer tacticity patterns arethen rated strongest to weakest, revealing the lock combination. Puzzle 3: hydrophobicity,in comparison, requires students to perform a small “wet” experiment. Here, studentsare provided with three polymer samples and their corresponding chemical structures.The chemical structures are color-coded to indicate the polar and non-polar regions of thepolymer. Students must place a droplet of water onto each polymer sample and comparethe contact angle. Polymer samples with more hydrophobic functional groups result in aEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 19 of 44large contact angle. Using this observation, students must rank the polymers in order ofhydrophobicity to reveal the combination.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 45 provided with three polymer samples and their corresponding chemical structures. The chemical structures are color-coded to indicate the polar and non-polar regions of the pol-ymer. Students must place a droplet of water onto each polymer sample and compare the contact angle. Polymer samples with more hydrophobic functional groups result in a large contact angle. Using this observation, students must rank the polymers in order of hydro-phobicity to reveal the combination. Figure 13. “ChemEscape: Polymers” Battle Box featuring puzzle 1: tacticity (left) and puzzle 3: hy-drophobicity (right) [70]. Unique to “ChemEscape: Polymers”, puzzles were scaffolded, requiring an under-standing of the first three puzzles to complete puzzle 4: designing a polymer for applica-tions as a wetsuit. The puzzle activity was accompanied by a worksheet, providing stu-dents with additional information related to course content as well to record their puzzle solutions and reasoning. The worksheet was similarly adapted for public outreach, providing participants with less chemistry jargon and more real-world comparisons. The polymer puzzles were also adapted as a CEA, in which students were provided with a cardboard puzzle backdrop and most of the required materials to solve the puzzles. Here, students needed to identify which components belong to which puzzle, guided by the workbook, to unlock boxes at the front of the room containing components to solve the next puzzle. Introduction of the CEA version of the activity improved mobility, lowered time for puzzle set-up, and eliminated the need for several lock combinations (all student groups’ puzzles resulted in the same combination used to open the communal lock boxes). In both iterations, students in groups of 2–4 worked to solve the four distinct polymer puzzles. Primary school students (outreach), grades 4–9, were given 30 min and a simpli-fied guiding workbook to complete the puzzles. Post-secondary students were given 50 min to complete the activity, with a workbook tailored to course learning objectives. This included providing additional background information and tactile elements used to make observations to polymer properties, fewer explicit hints or guiding questions, and less ob-vious differences in polymer chemical structure. With primary students, facilitators noted student success in identifying the puzzle learning objectives and instructors indicated this format, while challenging, allowed students to apply their scientific knowledge towards solving the puzzles. Facilitators noted similar positive experiences with post-secondary students, including high student engagement and the successful solution of puzzles which required both previously covered course content and those which introduced new material. A series of redox and thermodynamics-themed puzzles, applied in the Battle Box framework, were implemented in a first-year general chemistry class for engineers [55]. Students completed the activity during their tutorial section (50 students on average) in groups of 2–4. Student groups were given 30 min to complete two of the four puzzles, one puzzle on content already covered during the lecture (A) and one puzzle on new course content (B). The puzzles covered learning objectives related to chemical equilibrium (A), Figure 13. “ChemEscape: Polymers” Battle Box featuring puzzle 1: tacticity (left) and puzzle 3:hydrophobicity (right) [70].Unique to “ChemEscape: Polymers”, puzzles were scaffolded, requiring an under-standing of the first three puzzles to complete puzzle 4: designing a polymer for appli-cations as a wetsuit. The puzzle activity was accompanied by a worksheet, providingstudents with additional information related to course content as well to record their puz-zle solutions and reasoning. The worksheet was similarly adapted for public outreach,providing participants with less chemistry jargon and more real-world comparisons. Thepolymer puzzles were also adapted as a CEA, in which students were provided with acardboard puzzle backdrop and most of the required materials to solve the puzzles. Here,students needed to identify which components belong to which puzzle, guided by theworkbook, to unlock boxes at the front of the room containing components to solve thenext puzzle. Introduction of the CEA version of the activity improved mobility, loweredtime for puzzle set-up, and eliminated the need for several lock combinations (all studentgroups’ puzzles resulted in the same combination used to open the communal lock boxes).In both iterations, students in groups of 2–4 worked to solve the four distinct polymerpuzzles. Primary school students (outreach), grades 4–9, were given 30 min and a simplifiedguiding workbook to complete the puzzles. Post-secondary students were given 50 minto complete the activity, with a workbook tailored to course learning objectives. Thisincluded providing dditional backgr und information and tactile elements used to makeobservations to polymer properties, fewer explicit hints or guiding questions, and lessobvious differences in polymer chemical structure. With p imary students, facilitators notedstudent success in identifying the puzzle learning object ves and instructors ndicated hisforma , while challeng ng, allowed students to apply heir scientific kn wle ge towardssolving t e puzz es. Facilitat rs noted similar positive xperiences with post-secondarystudents, incl ding high student engagement and the successful solution of puzzles whichrequired both previously cover d course content those which introduced new material.A series of redox and thermodynamics-themed puzzles, applied in the Battle Boxfr mework, were implemented in a first-year general chemistry class for engineers [55].Students completed the activity duri g their tutorial section (50 students on average) ingroups f 2–4. Student groups were given 30 min to complete two of the four puzzles, onep zzle on cont nt already covered during the lecture (A) a d one puzzle new coursecontent (B). The puzzles covered learni g objectives related to chemical equilibrium (A),Gibbs free energy (B), metal redox properties (B), and electrochemistry and spontaneity (A).For example, puzzle 1: equilibrium constants, requires students to perform a mini “wet”experiment (Figure 14). Students are provided with a cup of hot and cold water andthree sealed samples of [CoCl4]2− in water with which to experiment. Through theirexperimentation, students must determine in which direction the reaction is exothermic(uniquely, the reaction in endergonic in the forward direction), the external stimuli thatcauses an increase in the equilibrium constant, and the corresponding reaction coordinateEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 20 of 44diagram. Students were quick to recognize that the sample tubes must be tested in thehot and cold water as well as shaken; however, they struggled to relate the color changesobserved upon heating and cooling to the directionality of the equilibrium.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 45 Gibbs free energy (B), metal redox properties (B), and electrochemistry and spontaneity (A). For example, puzzle 1: equilibrium constants, requires students to perform a mini “wet” experiment (Figure 14). Students are provided with a cup of hot and cold water and three sealed samples of [CoCl4]2− in water with which to experiment. Through their exper-imentation, students must determine in which direction the reaction is exothermic (uniquely, the reaction in endergonic in the forward direction), the external stimuli that causes an increase in the equilibrium constant, and the corresponding reaction coordinate diagram. Students wer quick to recognize that the sample tubes must be tested in the hot and col water s well as sh ken; however, they struggled to relate the color changes ob-serv d upon heating and cooling to the directionality of the equilibr um. Figure 14. “ChemEscape: Redox and Thermodynamics”. Puzzle 1: equilibrium constants (left) and puzzle 3: metal redox properties (right) [55]. Puzzle 3: metal redox properties, alternatively, has student examine a series of mock reaction set-ups (Figure 14). Six samples of metal combinations in agar are visualized with phenolphthalein, universal indicator, or potassium ferricyanide. Students must determine that (1) K3Fe(CN)6 turns blue in the presence of Fe(II), indicating when iron has been oxi-dized, (2) phenolphthalein is pink in the presence of a base and will indicate the location where oxygen, in the presence of water, is reduced to form hydroxide anions, (3) universal indicator can be used in place of phenolphthalein and will turn blue in the presence of hydroxide anions, and 4) the location where hydroxide ions are produced (center of the wrapped metal or tip of the metal wire) indicates which metal is being reduced. Color at the wrapped metal wire indicates the nail/ribbon metal is being oxidized, while color at the tips of the nail/ribbon suggests the wrapped metal wire is oxidized. Combining this information, students are able to rank the metals in order of most to least oxidizable as well as determine which metal may be applied to protect iron from rusting. In this iteration of puzzles, clues were presented in the form of exam-style questions, closely relating the puzzle contents to course learning objectives. Compared to previous “ChemEscape” puzzles, facilitators noted that students better understood the goals of each puzzle, likely a result of the more direct line of questioning (exam questions vs. rid-dles). Despite a better understanding of what needed to be provided to solve each puzzle, students were confused by distractor items, such as the color of the universal indicator matching the color of K3Fe(CN)6, classical to entertainment-focused escape rooms [42,44,47,68]. Students, however, enjoyed the experience, displaying high degrees of en-gagement, teamwork, and critical thinking. A unique, single-puzzle CEA is presented by Strippel, Schröder, and Sommer [72]. A locked clear box is equipped with a voltmeter, an electrical motor tethered to a door on Figure 14. “ChemEscape: Redox and Thermodynamics”. Puzzle 1: equilibrium constants (left) andpuzzle 3: metal redox properties (right) [55].Puzzle 3: metal redox properties, alternatively, has student examine a series of mockreaction set-ups (Figure 14). Six samples of metal combinations in agar are visualized withphenolphthalein, universal indicator, or potassium ferricyanide. Students must determinethat (1) K3Fe(CN)6 turns blue in the presence of Fe(II), indicating when iron has beenoxidized, (2) phenolphthalein is pink in the presence of a base and will indicate the locationwhere oxygen, in the presence of water, is reduced to form hydroxide anions, (3) universalindicator can be used in place of phenolphthalein and will turn blue in the presence ofhydroxide anions, and (4) the location where hydroxide ions are produced (center of thewrapped metal or tip of the metal wire) indicates which metal is being reduced. Color atthe wrapped metal wire indicates the nail/ribbon metal is being oxidized, while color atthe tips of the nail/ribbon suggests the wrapped metal wire is oxidized. Combining thisinformation, students are able to rank the metals in order of most to least oxidizable as wellas determine which metal may be applied to protect iron from rusting.In this iteration of puzzles, clues were presented in the form of exam-style questions,closely relating the puzzle contents to course learning objectives. Compared to previous“ChemEscape” puzzles, facilitators n ted that stude ts better understood the g als of eachpuzzle, likely a result of the more direct line of q estioning ( xam questions vs. riddles).Despite a better understanding of what needed to be provided to solve each puzzle, studentswere confus d y distracto i ems, such as the color of the universal indicator matching thecolor of K3Fe(CN)6, classical to entertainment-fo used escape rooms [42,44,47,68]. Students,however, enjoyed the experi nce, disp ying high degrees of gagement, teamwo k, andcritical thinking.A unique, single-puzzle CEA is presented by Strippel, Schröder, and Sommer [72]. Alocked clear box is quipp d with a voltmeter, an electrical motor tethered to a door onthe box, and two beakers (Figure 15). The electrical equipment is connected via n LCD toan external computer program. The program controls the general motor mechanism. Thepuzzle stipulates that a voltage must be generated to open the box, requiring students tobuild a working galvanic cell. The difficulty of the puzzle is regulated by the number ofelements in the galvanic cell that are already set up. For example, both beakers are alreadyin the box, meaning students must determine the appropriate electrodes and electrolytesolution. The puzzle can likewise be modified so that specific voltages are required inorder to engage the opening mechanism, challenging students to determine the appropriateEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 21 of 44metal electrode combinations. The puzzle mechanism can likewise be repurposed to teachconcepts such as acid–base chemistry by exchanging the voltmeter for a pH meter andaltering the programing.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 45 the box, and two beakers (Figure 15). The electrical equipment is connected via an LCD to an external computer program. The program controls the general motor mechanism. The puzzle stipulates that a voltage must be generated to open the box, requiring students to build a working galvanic cell. The difficulty of the puzzle is regulated by the number of elements in the galvanic cell that are already set up. For example, both beakers are already in the box, meaning students must determine the appropriate electrodes and electrolyte solution. The puzzle can likewise be modified so that specific voltages are required in order to engage the opening mechanism, challenging students to determine the appropri-ate metal electrode combinations. The puzzle mechanism can likewise be repurposed to teach concepts such as acid–base chemistry by exchanging the voltmeter for a pH meter and altering the programing. Figure 15. Galvanic cell escape box developed by Strippel, Schröder, and Sommer [72]. The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has prepared a series of miniature escape room puzzles, “Escape the Classroom” [73], open to RSC members. Six topics are available: exam escape (general chemistry, primary school), perplexing puddles (microscale reac-tions to explore chemical equilibria), basic puzzles (general chemistry, primary school), advanced challenges (general chemistry), materials science (liquid crystals, alloys, ther-mochromism, polymers), and color changes (general chemistry), featuring a mixture of “wet”, paper-based, and online puzzles. For example, the materials science puzzles, six total, are focused on introducing students to the interesting properties of modern materi-als. Puzzle 1, a memory test, introduces memory metals (stents, robotics) as well as the chemistry of nickel and its various alloys (Figure 16A–C). Students must decipher a series of clues related to a wiregram and playing card puzzle. The wiregram is made of nitinol (an alloy of nickel and titanium) that changes into a set shape when heated. When students heat the wiregram, it will reveal a number and shape corresponding to a specific playing card. On the card, written in UV-active ink, is the combination of the lock which can be revealed using UV light. Puzzles two and three explore the use of thermochromic paper and ink. In puzzle two, a code is written in black ink on a black thermochromic liquid crystal sheet. Heating the sheet above 27 °C causes a color change to red, green, or blue, revealing the code (Figure 16B). To solve puzzle three, students must heat a piece of paper. Written on the paper is the combination coated with thermochromic ink of the same color (Pilot Frixion). By heating the paper, the thermochromic ink changes color, revealing the code. Together, puzzles two and three can be used to introduce concepts of liquid crystals and their uses. Finally, puzzle four introduces students to hydrogels. Here, students re-veal a code at the bottom of a glass beaker filled with hydrated aqua beads by adding water (Figure 16C). The aqua beads and water have the same refractive index, causing the code to be revealed. Together, these puzzles offer a method to capture students’ interest in a topic before exploring deeper learning objectives. Figure 15. Galvanic cell escape box developed by Strippel, Schröder, and Sommer [72].The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has prepared a series of miniature escape roompuzzles, “Escape the Classroom” [73], open to RSC members. Six topics are available: examescape (general chemistry, primary school), perplexing puddles (microscale reactions toexplore chemical equilibria), basic puzzles (general chemistry, primary school), advancedchallenges (general chemistry), materials science (liquid crystals, alloys, thermochromism,polymers), and color changes (general chemistry), featuring a mixture of “wet”, paper-based, and online puzzles. For example, the materials science puzzles, six total, are focusedon introducing students to the interesting properties of modern materials. Puzzle 1, amemory test, introduces memory metals (stents, robotics) as well as the chemistry of nickeland its various alloys (Figure 16A–C). Students must decipher a series of clues relatedto a wiregram and playing card puzzle. The wiregram is made of nitinol (an alloy ofnickel and titanium) that changes into a set shape when heated. When students heat thewiregram, it will reveal a number and shape corresponding to a specific playing card. Onthe card, written in UV-active ink, is the combination of the lock which can be revealedusing UV light. Puzzles two and three explore the use of thermochromic paper and ink. Inpuzzle two, a code is written in black ink on a black thermochromic liquid crystal sheet.Heating the sheet above 27 ◦C causes a color change to red, green, or blue, revealing thecode (Figure 16B). To solve puzzle three, students must heat a piece of paper. Writtenon the paper is the combination coated with thermochromic ink of the same color (PilotFrixion). By heating the paper, the thermochromic ink changes color, revealing the code.Together, puzzles two and three can be used to introduce concepts of liquid crystals andtheir uses. Finally, puzzle four introduces st dents to hy rogels. Here, students revealcode at the bottom of a glass beaker filled with hydrated aqua b ads by adding wat r(Figure 16C). The aqua beads and water have the same refractive index, causing the co e tobe r vealed. Together, these puzzles offer method o capture students’ int rest in a topicbefore exploring deeper learning objectives.Battle B x s and condensed escape activities, relatively new to escape room activitydevelopment, provide a helpful solution to the problems associated with implementationof fully immersive escape rooms: room requirements, set-up time, take-down time, classsize, etc. These escape activities are mobile and require little advanced set-up on the partof the instructor. Similarly, as the contents of the “wet” experimentation within are oftenhousehold supplies, the activities can be implemented outside of laboratories. Comparedwith paper-based escape activities, Battle Boxes and CEAs are better able to immers stu-dents in a hands-on chemistry experience, allowing for “wet” experiments, analysis ofmock experiments, and classical numerical puzzles and riddles [69]. An additional benefitto the Battle Box framework is that once the box is assembled, numerous puzzle activitiescan be exchanged in the box, allowing for easy storage of alternative puzzles in Tupperwarecontainers, meaning several activity topics can be utilized throughout the year or betweencourses with minimal additional set-up. ChemEscape Consulting Inc. [74] currently pro-vides educational consultation and Battle Box puzzle development, tuning puzzles forEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 22 of 44specific course objectives. More on activity design consideration and tools can be found inSection 3.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 45 Figure 16. Royal Society of Chemistry “Escape the Classroom” materials science puzzles [73]. Battle Boxes and condensed escape activities, relatively new to escape room activity development, provide a helpful solution to the problems associated with implementation of fully immersive escape rooms: room requirements, set-up time, take-down time, class size, etc. These escape activities are mobile and require little advanced set-up on the part of the instructor. Similarly, as the contents of the “wet” experimentation within are often household supplies, the activities can be implemented outside of laboratories. Compared with paper-based escape activities, Battle Boxes and CEAs are better able to immers stu-dents in a hands-on chemistry experience, allowing for “wet” experiments, analysis of mock experiments, and classical numerical puzzles and riddles [69]. An additional benefit to the Battle Box framework is that once the box is assembled, numerous puzzle activities can be exchanged in the box, allowing for easy storage of alternative puzzles in Tupper-ware containers, meaning several activity topics can be utilized throughout the year or between courses with minimal additional set-up. ChemEscape Consulting Inc. [74] cur-rently provides educational consultation and Battle Box puzzle development, tuning puz-zles for specific course objectives. More on activity design consideration and tools can be found in Section 3. 2.4. Online Escape Rooms In considering educator and student needs, both in the context of administrative hours and resources, and with the recent need for virtual teaching [19,75], online escape rooms are of interest [76]. This section encompasses escape rooms which can be fully ad-ministered and performed virtually, requiring only access to a computer or mobile device. These puzzles, while providing, arguably, the least immersive student experience, are the most easily implemented in classrooms (in person and online) and as a result have been widely studied as an accessible active learning tool. Participants: infinite. Time: 20–60 min. Room Requirements: internet access. Set-Up Time: <5 min. Cost: free–$$$ depending on the requirement for app development. Recommended Implementation: lectures, tutorials, online learning. Subjects: general, organic, green (see Appendix A). Figure 16. (A–C) Royal Society of Chemistry “Escape the Classroom” materials science puzzles [73].2.4. Online Escape RoomsIn considering educator and student needs, both in the context of administrative hoursand resources, and with the recent need for virtual teaching [19,75], online escape roomsare of interest [76]. This section encompasses escape rooms which can be fully administeredand performed virtually, requiring only access to a computer or mobile device. Thesepuzzles, while providing, arguably, the least immersive student experience, are the mosteasily implemented in classrooms (in person and online) and as a result have been widelystudied as an accessible active learning tool.Participants: infinite.Time: 20–60 min.Room Requirements: internet access.Set-Up Time: <5 min.Cost: free–$$$ depending on the requirement for app development.Recommended Implementation: lectures, tutorials, online learning.Subjects: general, organic, green (see Appendix A).“Escape the (Remote) Classroom”, designed by Vergne et al., was implemented ina class of upper-year chemistry and biochemistry students [77]. This online alternativeemployed easily acces ible virtual tools such as Zoom and Google Forms for its creationand administration. The class of eight students met over Zoom and were divided intopairs. These pairs then worked through a Google Form consisting of four distinct puzzleswhich required them to enter the correct solution into the answer field before moving on tothe next. The puzzles consisted of molecular weight determinations, acid–base chemistry,chromatography, and linear regression, and took students at most 5 min per puzzle tocomplete. Here, a chocolate factory was used as a thematic setting from which puzzledesign was constructed. For example, the first station tasked students with determiningthe molecular weight of theobromine, a xanthine found in chocolate (Figure 17). A “giftshop” involved students completing a linear regression task where they determined theconcentration of an unknown compound using a UV calibration curve. Total run timesfor pairs ranged from 10 to 20 min. Students reported that pairs worked together, withno issues dividing work or tasks, towards the common goal of escaping. Compared toEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 23 of 44a classical worksheet in which students would answer the same types of questions, theonline escape room format provides a more engaging experience through inclusion of astoryline. Similarly, compared to a worksheet, online escape rooms provide instantaneousformative feedback on whether the question is correct.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 45 “Escape the (Remote) Classroom”, designed by Vergne et al., was implemented in a class of upper-year chemistry and biochemistry students [77]. This online alternative em-ployed easily accessible virtual tools such as Zoom and Google Forms for its creation and administration. The class of eight students met over Zoom and were divided into pairs. These pairs then worked through a Google Form consisting of four distinct puzzles which required them to enter the correct solution into the answer field before moving on to the next. The puzzles consisted of molecular weight determinations, acid–base chemistry, chromatography, and linear regression, and took students at most 5 min per puzzle to complete. Here, a chocolate factory was used as a thematic setting from which puzzle de-sign was constructed. For example, the first station tasked students with determining the molecular weight of theobromine, a xanthine found in chocolate (Figure 17). A “gift shop” involved students completing a linear regression task where they determined the concen-tration of an unknown compound using a UV calibration curve. Total run times for pairs ranged from 10 to 20 min. Students reported that pairs worked together, with no issues dividing work or tasks, towards the common goal of escaping. Compared to a classical worksheet in which students would answer the same types of questions, the online escape room format provides a more engaging experience through inclusion of a storyline. Simi-larly, compared to a worksheet, online escape rooms provide instantaneous formative feedback on whether the question is correct. Figure 17. Select examples from “Escape the (Remote) Classroom: Chocolate Factory”. Determina-tion of molecular weight puzzle (left). Linear regression puzzle (right) [77]. “Stereoisomers, Not Stereo Enigmas”, a stereoisomer-themed virtual escape room, was developed by Elford et al. for use with first-year undergraduate students to improve their understanding of stereochemistry [78]. In this, instructors developed escape rooms which used either a virtual reality (iVR) learning environment, augmented reality (AR), or a molecular model kit which students interacted with to solve the stereochemistry-based puzzles and escape. These puzzles were designed to take groups of three students 1 h to complete. The escape room featured puzzles of varying levels of difficulty which could be completed in parallel, rather than sequentially, to prevent students from becom-ing stuck on a more difficult puzzle early on. The four distinct puzzles, which utilize ci-phers, intel image markers, molecular modeling kits, AR, and iVR, required students to differentiate between stereoisomers, assign metal oxidation states, determine metal stere-ochemistry, and more. Depending on the participant group, physical molecular modeling kits, AR, or iVR are incorporated to assist with identification. For example, puzzle 2 pro-vides students with twelve intel image markers, placed throughout the room, each relat-ing to a different metal complex. Students must extract information pertaining to the cen-tral metal atom, bound ligands, geometrical isomerism, and molecular geometry. Figure 17. Select examples from “Escape the (Remote) Classroom: Chocolate Factory”. Determinationof molecular weight puzzle (left). Linear regression puzzle (right) [77].“Stereoisomers, Not Stereo Enigmas”, a stereoisomer-themed virtual escape room,was developed by Elford et al. for use with first-year undergraduate students to improvetheir understanding of stereochemistry [78]. In this, instructors developed escape roomswhich used either a virtual reality (iVR) learning environment, augmented reality (AR), ora molecular model kit which students interacted with to solve the stereochemistry-basedpuzzles and escape. These puzzles were designed to take groups of three students 1 h tocomplete. The escape room featured puzzles of varying levels of difficulty which could becompleted in parallel, rather than sequentially, to prevent students from becoming stuckon a more difficult puzzle early on. The four distinct puzzles, which utilize ciphers, intelimage markers, molecular modeling kits, AR, and iVR, required students to differe tiatebetween stereoisomers, assign metal oxidation states, determine metal stereochemistry,and ore. Depending on the participant grou , physical molecular modeling kits, AR,or iVR are incorporated t ssist with identification. For example, puzzle 2 providesstuden s with t elve intel image rkers, placed throug out t e room, each rel ting to adifferent metal co plex. Stud nts must extract info mation pertaining to the central m talatom, bound ligands, geometrical isomerism, and molecular geometry. Together, studentsidentify the metal complexes and determine the corresponding passcodes. Followingthe completion of the escape room, students reported greater levels of engagement andinterest in stereochemistry. Moreover, they expressed that this escape room method was abetter avenue for consolidating course knowledge, a testament to the benefits of active andcollaborative learning experiences.“The Masked Scientist” virtual escape room, pioneered by Haimovich et al., was usedwith high school and first-year undergraduate students [79]. The authors aimed to reinforcegeneral chemistry knowledge and concepts such as radioactive decay, stoichiometry, andcommon elements found in everyday items. The nine distinct puzzles were designed usingthe publicly available WIX site, and groups of 3–4 students were given 90 min to escape thevirtual room, averaging a completion time of 31 min. Some examples, shown in Figure 18,included the “Elements Attracted to the Magnet” and “Smoke Detector” puzzles. In thefirst example, students use a magnet, found lying on the floor, to test four unique NobelPrize medals. Medals containing a metal which exhibits magnetic properties (Ni, Co, Fe)will attract the magnet. The medal stands and the locks become colored upon use of theEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 24 of 44magnet, which allows the metal to be associated with the appropriate lock (Figure 18A). Thelock combination corresponds to the highest energy level when determining the electronicconfiguration (e.g., Fe = 1s22s22p63s23p64s23d6 = 4) and the element’s atomic number. In“Smoke Detector”, a figure appears on the screen which shows an open detector, 237Np andα symbols, and a calculator that implies that a reaction should be formulated (Figure 18B).Students successfully solve the puzzle when they determine the chemical reaction. Dueto the flexibility offered by WIX, much more elaborate and thematic puzzles were ableto be created in a virtual format. Additionally, through the application of experimentalvideos, authors were able to include experiments and procedures which would be unsafefor students to perform in an actual lab setting. For example, the storyline proceeds suchthat a series of lasers must be revealed before students can “enter the next room”. To dothis, students balance the reaction equations for the decomposition of NI3 to N2 and I2,resulting in the formation of iodine vapor which visualizes the lasers.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 45 Together, students identify the metal complexes and determine the corresponding passcodes. Following the completion of the escape room, students reported greater levels of engagement and interest in stereochemistry. Moreover, they expressed that this escape room method was a better avenue for consolidating course knowledge, a testament to the benefits of active and collaborative learning experiences. “The Masked Scientist” virtual escape room, pioneered by Haimovich et al., was used with high school and first-year undergraduate students [79]. The authors aimed to rein-force general chemistry knowledge and concepts such as radioactive decay, stoichiometry, and common elements found in everyday items. The nine distinct puzzles were designed using the publicly available WIX site, and groups of 3–4 students were given 90 min to escape the virtual room, averaging a completion time of 31 min. Some examples, shown in Figure 18, included the “Elements Attracted to the Magnet” and “Smoke Detector” puz-zles. In the first example, students use a magnet, found lying on the floor, to test four unique Nobel Prize medals. Medals containing a metal which exhibits magnetic proper-ties (Ni, Co, Fe) will attract the magnet. The medal stands and the locks become colored upon use of the magnet, which allows the metal to be associated with the appropriate lock (Figure 18A). The lock combination corresponds to the highest energy level when deter-mining the electronic configuration (e.g., Fe = 1s22s22p63s23p64s23d6 = 4) and the element’s atomic number. In “Smoke Detector”, a figure appears on the screen which shows an open detector, 237Np and α symbols, and a calculator that implies that a reaction should be for-m lated (Figure 18B). Students s ccessfully solve the puzzle when they determi e the chemical reaction. Du to the flexibility offered by WIX, muc ore elaborate and the-matic puzzles were able to be create in a virtual format. Additionally, through the appli-cation of experim ntal videos, a thors were able to includ experiments and procedures which would be unsafe for students to p rform in an ctual lab setting. For example, the storylin proceed such that a s ri s of lasers must be revealed b fore students can “enter e next room”. To do t is, students bal nce the eaction equations for the decomposition of NI3 to N2 and I2, resulting in the formation of iodine vapor which visualizes the lasers. Figure 18. Select puzzle examples from “The Masked Scientist” activity. (A). Elements attracted to the magnet puzzle. (B). Smoke detector puzzle [79]. Importantly, if used unchanged (access to WIX site available upon request), this es-cape room requires minimal set-up labor on the instructor’s behalf. Administration of these puzzles can be carried out both in a classroom setting, where students share a Figure 18. Select puzzle examples from “The asked Scientist” activity. (A). Elements attracted tothe magnet puzzle. (B). Smoke detector puzzle [79].I rta tl , if used unchanged (access to WIX site available upon request), this escaperoom requir s minimal set-up labor on the instructor’s behalf. Administration of thesepuzzles can be carri d out both in a classroom setting, where students share a computeror printed puzzles, or in a fully virtual setting using video conferencing applications.Student and teacher feedback highlighted the value added by use of an immersive andtailored online environment, rather than simply a Zoom call, and demonstrates that virtualescape rooms can offer similar benefits to fully immersive experiences. However, whenadministered through Zoom, 75% of students indicated their experience would havebeen greater had the escape room been administered in person [80]. Regardless of theadministration format, students noted the benefits of the activity, mentioning how thepuzzles allowed them to assess their understanding, providing feedback on what contentthey needed to review.Online/virtual escape rooms are a recent advancement and as such have receivedmuch attention in chemistry education literature. Their prevalence may be a function ofthe low-cost options available virtually (slide decks, videos, etc.), although we recognizethat other options such as app development may be more costly. Online tools of thisnature have the added benefit of giving students new methods for visualizing structureand bonding [81], noting that stereochemistry is a common topic in these puzzles [78,82].Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 25 of 44Uniquely, online escape rooms offer the opportunity for students to participate in exper-iments which they would not otherwise be able to due to concerns of safety or lack ofaccess to equipment [79]. However, in reports which directly compare in-person and onlineescape rooms, student satisfaction is generally higher for the hands-on iterations [79,80].Due to the teamwork-intensive nature of escape rooms, it is possible that communicationwas impaired in activities which were administered entirely online (i.e., via Zoom). Thiscan be remedied by having students share a computer in class, when possible, similarlyeasing instructor involvement in the activity. Despite this, online escape rooms still showconsiderable benefit to student learning.3. Designing Escape Room ActivitiesWithin the literature, there is no shortage of escape rooms designed for science ed-ucation [42,44,46,79,83]. These designs have many considerations for educators lookingto adopt theories of gamification or experiential learning with escape rooms [46,84,85].These design considerations can be broken down into different questions that an educatorcan use to design their own puzzle activity. In the following section, we will break downthese questions, provide examples of what has been achieved in the literature, and givea worked example utilizing these questions. These guiding questions are summarized inTable 1. Within this section, we explore some of the many considerations for designingeducational escape rooms. The examples provided are meant to highlight current trendsin educational escape room design, various theoretical frameworks (i.e., learning theory),and logistical decisions in designing escape rooms. To be clear, there are many ways todesign gamified learning activities, and the examples provided are meant to show breadthover standardization.Table 1. Questions to guide educators in the development of chemistry escape room activities.Section Questions3.0 Logistics(i.e., What practicalconsiderations do I need toconsider?)1. How many people need to participate in the activity?2. What is the time frame (i.e., class time or event length) to complete the activity?3. How much time do students need to settle in the space and reset or clean up the escape room?4. What is the cost of the supplies that are not currently accessible?5. Who resets the puzzles after they are completed?3.1. Audience(i.e., Who is participating?)1. Who is the audience (i.e., students, adults, children)?2. Is this activity being designed for a specific subject or classroom?3. What is the audience experience with the content knowledge and/or skills being explored inthe activity?4. Do participants need training or protective equipment to fulfill any safety requirements ofthe activities?5. How can the accessibility of the activity be improved?3.1 Purpose(i.e., What is the goal of theactivity?)1. What is the purpose of implementing the activity?2. Is the purpose of the activity informed by course learning outcomes?3. Is the purpose of the activity based on skill development, engagement, or community buildinginstead of content knowledge?4. How are you going to understand if participants have the experience related to the purpose ofthe activity?5. To achieve the purpose, do students need to complete all, some, or none of the activity?3.2 Location and Space(i.e., Where is the activitybeing completed?)1. What type of room is the activity being completed in (i.e., lecture hall, classroom with tables,laboratory or outside)?2. What is the layout of the room?3.2 Instructor or DesignerWorkload(i.e., What is the workload ofthe preparation?)1. Can the activities be related to pre-existing experiments or material in the course?2. How much time do you have to develop the activity?3. Do you require funding to complete the activity?4. What supplies are already accessible to you (chemical, equipment or technology)?5. Are the materials reusable or do they need to be replaced after each iteration?Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 26 of 44Table 1. Cont.Section Questions3.2 Interactivity andTactility(i.e., If desired how can thesebe added to an activity)1. Is interactivity and/or tactility a goal of designing the activity?2. What elements of your activities are tactile?3. Why does a particular element need to be tactile?4. What types of locks are being used to design the activity?5. How could different types of locks be used in the design of the activity?6. What are the potential hazards in the activities?3.3 Learning Theories andGame Elements(i.e., What are the theoreticalcommitments required todesign the activity?)1. Is the purpose of using an escape room aligned with a specific learning theory?2. Is there a specific learning theory or taxonomy that you want the escape room to be modeled after?3. What assumptions do you need to hold to implement this learning theory in the activity?4. How does the design of the activity align with the assumptions of the learning theory or taxonomyyou are using?5. Is the goal of the activity to define the activity as gamified learning?6. How is gamification defined in your activity?7. What game elements are being incorporated into the design of your specific activity?3.4 Adaption Based onFeedback(i.e., How did participantsand facilitators respond to thegoal of the activity?)1. How do you plan to test the activity before it is implemented?2. How does the feedback asked for align with the purpose of the activity?3. How did students enjoy the activity?4. How did students engage with the activity?5. Where did students need the most facilitator support or feedback?6. Did anything not work as expected that you want to change next time?7. Are you looking to assess students learning from the activity?8. How might the feedback for engagement look different than for content knowledge?9. What did you learn from running the activity?3.1. Defining Your Audience: Purpose, Knowledge, and OutcomesThe broadest considerations in the design of any gamified activity are the audience andthe resources available [86–88]. In terms of audience, we consider who will be participatingin the escape room and what knowledge they have or need to complete the activity. Forexample, some escape rooms are designed for high school [89], introductory chemistry [49],or even elementary school [90]. The intended audience of the escape room activity is oftencommunicated in an article’s title, abstract, keywords, and the design choices within theactivity itself. For example, an escape activity targeting the public as an outreach toolmight utilize household chemicals to introduce “wet” experimentation while an escaperoom targeting a first-year undergraduate class may host the experience in a laboratorywith more hazardous materials. An important consideration in designing an escape roomexperience is the participants’ safety knowledge and, if required, how safety considerationswill be communicated within the activity. For example, if students are completing this aspart of a laboratory component of the course, safety might be communicated during theintroduction of the activity as is the case when entering a laboratory. Alternatively, safetytraining might be provided in an activity outside of the laboratory environment such ashelping participants understand safety signage or discussing the rules. Prior knowledge canalso include participants’ familiarity with a skill or piece of knowledge. Their knowledgeinforms the purpose of the activity, the design of clues, and the role of the facilitator.The goal or purpose of the educational escape room highlights what educators wantstudents to take away from the activity. There is a variety of outcomes for these activitiessuch as increasing engagement and learning specific content knowledge or disciplinaryskills. Escape rooms focusing on engagement might be interested in knowing if theirstudents enjoyed the activity, their feedback, and what they took away [63,66,79,91,92].In other contexts, there is a desire to have the escape room teach students a specificconcept or skill [56,70,78]. In this case, content can be tailored to achieve course learningoutcomes [55,70]. Learning outcomes can also extend beyond chemistry content, to build21st-century skills or influence the affective domain such as engagement, communication,and self-regulation [50,87,93–95]. Regardless of the desired goals of the activity, havingEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 27 of 44a clear purpose for the escape room is important for successful design, as it informs thefeedback you solicit and the design components included such as tactility, learning theories,and game elements [42,44,76].Connecting the purpose of the escape room activity with specific learning objectivesrequires the educator to define the knowledge essential to complete the puzzles, bothprevious knowledge and information to be provided within the activity. The knowledgerequirements shift depending on whether the activity will be used to introduce, reinforce,or assess a concept [96,97]. These considerations are incorporated into the puzzle design bycarefully tailoring the hints/clues provided, background information, and general facili-tation. An escape room introducing or reinforcing a concept provides more backgroundinformation in the opening story or within the hints and clues. For example, Clapson et al.in the implementation of “ChemEscape: Polymer Puzzles” used a workbook to providethe storyline and introductory information to two separate audiences, the public (grade4+) and a second-year introductory materials chemistry course, allowing the content to bereadily tailored without changing the puzzle components [70]. The workbook providedcontext to the four puzzles for each learning level as well as guided students’ progressionthrough each of the puzzles. Another approach is incorporating exam-style questions tosolve alongside clues on how to open the lock. “Project Lockbox”, for example, pairs quali-tative questions (with numbered or multiple-choice options) and quantitative questions(numerical answers with a box indicating which number is to be utilized in opening a lock)in a worksheet that guides students in puzzle solution [66]. As an alternative to a worksheetapproach, the opening story of an escape room activity can be verbally communicatedto participants and the individual puzzles can be presented on different sheets of paper.Additionally, worksheets can communicate safety hazards, supplies, and provide a spot towrite the lock combination as seen in “Spectroscopy Unlocked” [60]. Worksheets provide aversatile option in gameplay, shaping the game elements and the difficulty of puzzles inaccordance with the audience.For activities that have engagement and other affective outcomes, considering theparticipants’ familiarity with the topic can shape the activity design. For example, escaperoom activities targeted at engaging wide audiences to improve enjoyment of chemistrymay provide little background information tailored to specific learning objectives but ratherfocus on storytelling and room exploration. The mobile escape room developed by Peleget al., for example, includes several puzzles that require little chemistry knowledge tocomplete but have exciting reveals (color changes, physical changes) for combinationsand keys [61]. “Escape ClassRoom CSI 1.0” similarly incorporates several entertainment-focused puzzles such as hidden doors, puzzles requiring participants to search the roomfor materials, and riddles [48]. As highlighted by Verge et al. and others, finding abalance when employing classical escape room puzzles (riddles, hidden clues, ciphers,etc.) is imperative to the development of an educational escape room, ensuring that courselearning objectives are being effectively highlighted through the activity [50,56,86,87,94,95].For a more comprehensive review on activity design elements for effective hands-on andactive learning, we turn readers the following references [86,98,99].3.2. Escape Room Design and Educator ResourcesTo support the inclusion of game elements in the design of activities, having a cleardefinition of gamification and learning game design skills is an asset. Several articles high-light the importance of game design, working to align learning objectives with storylinesand specific game tasks [100,101]. A clear alignment between the task performed andtheir relationship to coursework can help educators to reduce ludonarrative dissonance,improving student understanding during gameplay. There are many excellent resourcesto support educators in learning about game design [102–106], incorporating interactivegame components and moving beyond quiz-style formats where applicable.A major consideration in the design and implementation of an escape room activity isthe available resources for the educator. The time to run the activity, course size, supplies,Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 28 of 44and funding shape the resources required [42,44]. As seen within the literature, escaperooms can range from fully immersive rooms, condensed escape activities, individualpuzzles, and online games to paper-based puzzles. Each, as previously discussed, has prosand cons associated with assembly and implementation. When choosing the best escaperoom approach for your content, it is recommended not only to consider the time andspace available for the activity but also the reusability of the activity itself, if componentsof the activity can be repurposed, and the available funding for the activity both withinand outside of the institution. Below, we outline some of the considerations and examplesfor each style of escape room experience.Immersive rooms are often limited based on supply costs, number of participatingstudents, time to complete the activity, and room layout [107]. Part of the cost can includethe supplies for having multiple puzzles contained within the room [49,108], specificlaboratory equipment [56,57], and decorations for the room to develop the story and gameelements within the space. Some immersive escape rooms can contain anywhere from2 to 18 puzzles; the number of puzzles employed is dictated by the complexity of thepuzzles themselves as well as the time allotted for the activity. For example, puzzles byVergne et al. required specific laboratory instrumentation such as gas chromatography massspectrometry (GCMS), limiting both the space in which the escape room can be performed(requiring a lab equipped with a GCMS), number of students, and time to be completed(as each group is required to collect their own GCMS spectrum) [56]. The incorporationof laboratory spaces, equipment, and chemicals additionally adds safety considerationsthat educators and students completing the escape room must consider. In many cases,hazards can be readily communicated to students during the introduction of the experience,through safety signage, and facilitator feedback. The safety requirements can similarlydiffer depending on if the activity is being completed in a laboratory space, as part ofclass/course, or as outreach [60].In most cases, immersive escape rooms are practical for use with small course sizes,outside of lecture hours, in a teaching space such as those used for tutorials or laboratories,as these allow for group work between students and movement throughout the room. Thenumber of students that can be accommodated is determined based on the time to completethe escape room, available instruction time, and the amount of equipment. Additionally,escape rooms can be completed over multiple sessions, allowing for longer puzzles [57]. Tohelp determine the time required for the activity, individuals may find it beneficial to testrun the activity with other educators [49,108] or teaching assistants [60,66]. For example,Doughty, in the design of “Lockbox”, had teaching assistants complete the activity andgave students double the time it took the TAs to complete the activity plus an additional10–15 min of buffer time to become acquainted with the components [66]. Part of the focusof an immersive escape room is prioritizing the inclusion of game elements (gamification)and interactivity, often lengthening the preparation time for educators and limiting thenumber of participants.Condensed escape activities are a helpful tool incorporating both the tactility andexperimentation of an immersive escape room with the mobility of paper-based experiences.An interesting box design described by Veldkamp et al. features a hexagonal-shaped boxin which six puzzles are housed [41]. Three puzzles are initially exposed, with solution ofthe three puzzles unlocking the second three (dropping a small panel). Solving puzzles4–6 provides a combination allowing for a “bomb”, held inside the box, to be diffused. Theboxes are enriched by including covers and drawers which can contain clues and puzzlematerials, mimicking the “hidden element” component common to immersive rooms.Similarly, Battle Box, the hexagonal escape box can be readily adapted to new puzzlecontent and assembled in advance, leading to fast and easy handling. Mobile escape roomssuch as that described by Peleg et al. provide a similar benefit, providing educators withpre-developed puzzles for implementation into laboratories [61]. The reusability of theseactivities is a particular benefit as it lowers the cost of implementing subsequent escapeactivities. Educators choosing to utilize this escape room method should prepare puzzleEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 29 of 44materials for high-traffic environments—the puzzles must be built to last. This meanslaminating paper components, securing structural components to the box, and havingspare pieces where possible. In comparison to an immersive experience, condensed escapeactivities have a lower barrier to implementation, often requiring less time to complete, todevelop, and to facilitate making them a useful active learning technique that can be readilyimplemented over several iterations. Similarly, the current CEAs described have thoroughsupporting information files, allowing educators at other institutions to readily build andtailor the activities described. Blueprints, printable files, and instructions outlining theset-up, solution, and recommended facilitator interventions for these activities are integralin the success of condensed escape rooms.Conversely, paper-based escape rooms have significantly lower associated costs andallow for a larger number of participants, requiring little active experimental space. How-ever, this format often lacks elements of gamification and tactile components to make themengaging escape rooms [46]. Paper-based escape rooms are often implemented to focus ondefining, describing, and comparing puzzle content and questions; however, allowing stu-dents to engage with one another as a team during puzzle solution can create opportunitiesfor discussion and feedback from peers, enriching the experience. The ability for studentsto work in teams during puzzle solution is often key to the success of the active learningtechnique [40,46,50,68,95]. The strength of paper-based escape rooms is the ease in whichthey can be scaled-up for applications in larger introductory courses as they are easy to resetby the facilitator and do not require as many supplies beyond locks and instructions [63,91].Depending on the educator’s goals for an escape room, the number of game elements andthe outcomes for the escape room will vary. For example, the introduction of locks to aworksheet may not necessarily be implemented to apply gamification but rather as anopportunity for students to receive immediate formative feedback [46,66]. “Lockbox”, forexample, includes numerical locks to provide instant feedback on worksheet questions butlack hints, experiences, storylines, and other game elements built into its design [106,107].Digital escape rooms provide increased flexibility as they can be completed anywherewith access to the internet [76]. Online games can likewise allow for the integration ofgreater student choice in the solution of puzzles [109,110]. Different platforms have beenleveraged to design digital escape rooms such as Zoom paired with a Google Form [111],augmented reality (metaverse) [112], WhatsApp [92], and Flippity [113,114]. Dependingon the platform used, different digital escape rooms are logistically more feasible for largeclassrooms. Most students have personal electronic devices such as computers or phoneswhich can be used for gameplay, whereas VR or AR headsets would need to be providedto participants. With escape activities being developed using a platform such as GoogleForms, educators are often familiar with the interface, so puzzle design is less time-intensive.However, these activities have limitations similar to those of worksheet-style escape rooms.Specifically, these often feature a lack of game elements in favor of mass distribution forlarge classes and instant feedback. Additionally, escape rooms applied solely in an onlineenvironment may suffer from reduced team communication compared to those applied inclass [80]. More immersive games may also require coding and programming expertiseto create exploratory, open-ended designs; a feature that may be daunting to educatorsnot well versed in this area [115]. While several online chemistry escape rooms havebeen developed, there is no current bank of activities that can be easily accessed by othereducators, limiting their implementation at other institutions.3.3. Learning TheoriesIn the design of any game-based learning intervention, the narrowest considera-tion is having the design be informed by learning theories and general gamificationpractices [28,116]. Learning theories support an educator’s beliefs about teaching andlearning in their classrooms including pedagogy [117], assessments [11], and learningactivities [32,118]. Additionally, a theoretical lens can also be applied, centering in onuniversal design for learning and equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) [119]. Educators’Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 30 of 44beliefs may likewise include ideas regarding the role of the students, the role of the edu-cator, what is learning, and what is knowledge [21,118,120]. Some approaches to learningthat educators have linked to escape rooms are experiential learning [78,121,122], Bloom’sTaxonomy [55,70,123], and gamification [93,124,125], as mentioned in Section 1. For escaperooms informed by Bloom’s taxonomy, educators prioritize the development of higher-order thinking skills, such as applying or evaluating instead of recalling information [1].Game elements which provide learners with choices, challenges, instantaneous feedback,world-building, hints, and point systems [85,124,126] can help to achieve these higher-order problem-solving skills. Similarly, concepts such as educational scaffolding have beenshown to be beneficial in gamified learning [127].3.4. Participant FeedbackAs part of the experience, participants receive instantaneous feedback. Educatorscan frame how this feedback is presented to participants. Escape rooms as a means forcompetition-based learning have also been shown to improve interactivity, collaborativeteamwork, and active participation, create a sense of challenge versus duties, and improvemotivation for learning [28,113]. Important however in the application of competition-based learning is assuring students that “poor” results, such as taking longer than anotherteam to complete a set of puzzles, will not affect their overall grades but rather the experi-ence itself is meant for learning. “Winners” may optionally see improvements to grades orsmall awards such as congratulatory messages, candy, or bonus marks. In this sense, thereis no penalty for engaging in the escape room activity, but there is motivation to participatein hopes of receiving a bonus [28].A final, but important, aspect in designing escape rooms is the solicitation of feedbackfrom participants. Feedback should not only include participants’ enjoyment of the activity,or its motivational effects on learning, but also recommendations for improvement on theoverall design. This may include feedback on which puzzles were the most repeatableexperimentally, or simple feedback such as providing written instructions on how the lockswork rather than verbal instructions. With each iteration, educators can learn new ap-proaches to design the puzzles and common areas of student confusion. Section 5 exploresmethods for soliciting student feedback and its use in assessing active learning strategies.While there are many methods for designing escape room puzzles, Table 1 providesadditional examples of guiding questions that may be utilized by interested educators. Asescape rooms have become more popular in education, numerous resources have likewisebeen compiled to help educators in their development [98,99,128–130]. Similarly, severaleducational design and consulting companies have emerged, which are able to create escaperoom content for educators based on supplied course learning objectives [74,131–134].Individuals wishing to implement escape room activities may find it beneficial to experiencean entertainment-focused commercial escape room to better explore gaming elements. Thiscan help in the brainstorming of new puzzles but also provides a better sense of where andhow confusion can develop during puzzle solution, lending to better clue and hint design.We also turn readers to the book Escape the Game: How to Make Puzzles and Escape Roomsby Clare for further information and examples [135]. Additionally, in the development ofall activities, we strongly encourage educators to probe the accessibility of the design andturn readers to the following articles [136–139]. For example, does puzzle solution requirethe implementation of fine motor skills? Does the design utilize small text, hidden text, orhard-to-read text? In considering these questions, we can develop activities that allow allstudents to participate.4. The Benefits of Puzzle Development on LearningMuch of the literature on escape rooms focuses on students solving or playing with theescape rooms. A less explored avenue for escape room applications in learning is studentsdeveloping their own puzzles. As anyone who has designed an escape room might know, agreat deal of learning takes place as you link course content knowledge to the puzzle beingEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 31 of 44designed [7]. This aligns with theories of learning such as active learning and experientiallearning [21,107]. With active learning, students have the autonomy to make choices intheir own learning and participate. Experiential learning has students reflect and design asa part of their learning experience [21]. Both learning theories, when incorporated withinthe classroom, have led to improved learning and engagement [89]. We might expectsome learning benefits when linking active learning and escape room design. In a studyby Schechtel et al., students in an introductory chemistry course for engineers designedtheir own puzzles for applications in a Battle Box [140]. During the semester, studentswere asked to design two puzzles, one focused on material covered earlier in the semester,and one including material from later in the semester. To design their puzzles, studentswere given access to supplies such as combination locks, simple glassware, eyedroppers,a select list of aqueous solutions (for electrochemical cells, acids/bases, or indicators),gloves, and electrochemical cell set-ups. Prior to the experience, students were able toengage with the “ChemEscape: General Chemistry” puzzles [69]. Feedback was providedto students during an early-semester tutorial and midsemester when they submitted theirpuzzle proposals to TAs for approval of design and supplies. Any additional supplieswere provided by the students such as paper, calculators, blocks, or paper puzzle piecesas required. At the end of the semester, student groups solved one another’s puzzles andprovided feedback. The activity was likewise assessed by instructors using a general rubric,containing marks for creativity, clarity of learning objective, and providing a sound answerto the puzzle based on their chemistry content knowledge. This study is a steppingstoneshowcasing that puzzle creation can happen in large introductory courses and that studentscan identify the learning objectives from instructor-designed puzzles. A logistical challengereported by the authors is ensuring students have adequate resources to support the puzzledevelopment [140]. An additional consideration that was overlooked was the workload onstudents, which led some students to design their puzzles based off the examples providedin the project instructions or to just provide a piece of paper and a pencil as a puzzle.One example from engineering had 105 students develop boardgames related to theircourse work, namely kinetics, process safety, and instrumentational control, over threeweeks [123]. Similarly to the previous example, students were assessed based on creativity,course content understanding, topics selected, and peer evaluations. The students in thisstudy built a stronger sense of community and were pushed to engage in deeper learning.Other studies have shown improved student engagement and learning from studentscreating their own games [141]. In the digital sphere, student game design has taughtstudents new skills like coding, created stronger communities, improved peer teaching,and improved literacy. In another study, students felt empowered in their learning andnoted improvements to their critical thinking [142]. While some examples of game creationlean on digital applications, their findings provide a promising path forward to invitingstudents to engage more deeply with their learning.“Spectroscopy Unlocked” similarly employed two undergraduate students in thedevelopment of the escape room activity as part of their research studies in chemistry edu-cation [60]. Faculty members supported the students in designing the course-based puzzlecomponents, as well as the practical aspects required for completion of the activity (howdoes each puzzle help students to escape?), mainly ensuring the content was appropriatefor the learning audience. The activity was designed over the course of 10 weeks andlater implemented into an introductory undergraduate chemistry classroom. When probedabout their experience, the students noted the high level of skill development associatedwith preparing the activity, requiring time management, organization, and creative problemsolving. Developing the puzzles also provided the students with a deeper understandingof the subject matter and allowed them to hone their communication skills. Sentimentssuch as this have likewise been reported for junior organizers assisting in the develop-ment of gamified learning materials for applications in the Societal Impacts of InorganicChemistry symposium hosted at the 2023 Canadian Chemistry Conference and Exhibition.Here, students also highlighted the importance of engaging in activity development onEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 32 of 44their self-efficacy and feelings of belonging within the chemistry community [143]. Thedevelopment of course materials, specifically gamified components such as escape rooms,provides a unique avenue for students to showcase their content understanding as well asdevelop a stronger sense of self-efficacy as a member of the scientific community. Couplingtogether puzzle solution and puzzle development yields a unique experience in whichstudents can actively engage in higher learning.5. Assessing Active Learning and Escape-Room-Based PuzzlesAs outlined in Section 1, active learning in the STEM classroom is a well-establishedpractice to increase student academic performance [4]. A 2018 report by Stains et al.indicated that active learning methodologies had found use in 40% of large college STEMcourses in the United States [144]. A further 2024 report from Stains indicated that tenurestatus and institution type, as well as personal characteristics of the instructor, are goodindicators of active learning uptake for introductory general chemistry classes [145]. Fiveprinciples underlie active learning including constructivism, problem solving, knowledgetransfer, collaboration, and explanation articulation [4]. Here, we are considering puzzlesand escape-room-type activities as active learning tools; however, the suite of active learningmethodologies can be expanded to include classroom discussions, iClicker questions,practice problems to be completed individually or in small groups, team-based learning,and further educational games.There are meaningful ways in which the effect of using active learning techniquescan be measured with respect to student performance, student persistence in STEM fields,and the sense of social supports as a function of this research-based instructional strategy.Overall, active learning is well understood to lead to higher student performance; a 2014meta-analysis of 225 publications indicated classes with active learning strategies had6% higher scores [4]. Additionally, students in traditional lecture courses were 1.5 timesmore likely to fail. This meta-analysis also revealed the active learning strategies weremost efficacious with classes of 50 students or less [4]. Use of active learning can alsoreduce the achievement gaps for underrepresented minorities in STEM fields [12]. Activelearning techniques have been shown to significantly narrow achievement gaps for under-represented minorities using both remote and in-person instruction [146]. Additionally, aparticular 2022 study found that active learning strategies used in a General Chemistry Iclass reduced attrition of female-identifying students by 7% [147]. A validated instrumentis available to measure the perception of social support during active learning (called thePerception of Social Supports for Active Learning or PSSALI); this self-reported survey toolis used to understand students’ perceptions of the support they are receiving from learningassistants (commonly known as teaching assistants) to engage in active learning duringchemistry courses [148]. This tool, which assesses appraisal support, emotional support,and informational support, can be particularly useful when considering the support thatstudents are being provided by teaching (or learning) assistants in large courses whereactive learning is used.With respect to escape-room-style puzzles, there are many ways to assess students bothin terms of performance and perception. Unsurprisingly, all reports of escape-room-stylepuzzles reported in the chemical education literature assessed whether (and how many)students successfully completed the puzzle. Students may complete a pre- and post-testor quiz on the content that is being incorporated into these escape room activities; onesuch report in 2024 using a battle card game for chemical tests found that students showedimproved scores on this test after the escape room activity than before [149]. Another useof a pre- and post-test survey was reported in 2022 to investigate the effect of a digitalescape room to challenge student misconceptions about stoichiometry [150]. Groups werecontrolled, with one group receiving only online instruction, one group participating inthe digital escape room only, and one group receiving online instruction in addition to thedigital escape room. The results from this study implied that a digital escape room was justas effective as a typical online lesson with a collaborative learning method in addressingEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 33 of 44misconceptions around stoichiometry. Some educators may choose to measure the timeto complete a puzzle as part of their assessment. While this cannot accurately measurestudent understanding (i.e., just because a group completes a puzzle quickly does not meanthey learned something more robustly than a group that finished in more time and viceversa), it can provide insight into student engagement and puzzle feasibility.Student surveys remain an powerful and informative tool to probe the efficacy ofthe escape-room-style puzzle; therefore, virtually all reports of escape room activities inchemistry classrooms include some kind of student survey with a variety of questionsbeing asked. Some major themes emerge when assessing these survey tools. Survey ques-tions addressed student enjoyment of the activity, frequently, using a 4-point or 5-pointLikert-style model [65]. Many survey questions also asked about student confidence andperceived competency in the chemistry content as a result of completing the activity [111].Many survey questions also chose to explore the idea of teamwork in escape-room-stylepuzzles; whether students enjoyed working in teams and if they felt they benefited fromthe teamwork element of this active learning [61]. Beyond the quantitative survey ques-tions, many surveys also chose to ask qualitative (textual) questions to gather additionalinformation and to ask if and why they found the teaching material(s) meaningful [151].Survey question themes emerged, as did themes around student responses. Across reportsof escape-room-style puzzles, regardless of whether students were asked for quantitativeor qualitative responses, and regardless of what questions they were asked, responses werepositive. Students felt they learned the chemistry content as a function of completing thepuzzle with increased confidence, an appreciation for teamwork and communication, andwhen asked deliberately, students reported they would like to see more escape-room-stylepuzzles included in other classes [152].6. Future PerspectivesDespite the explosion of educational escape rooms within the literature, one of thebiggest critiques is the incorporation of full-room, immersive components, such as activeexperimentation and tactility, into large classrooms [42,44,47,68]. Targeting these high-enrolment courses requires a more purposeful design of tactile components, consideringnot only the space in which the activity can be performed (lecture hall, tutorial room, etc.)but the reusability of puzzle components, aiming to reduce supply costs and puzzle resettime if multiple student groups are using the puzzles. For example, “ChemEscape” BattleBoxes have been implemented at large-scale outreach events as well as in large-enrolmentchemistry courses [55,69,70]. The multi-day use of the puzzles as well as the high turnoverrequired the puzzles to be designed for integrity, so that puzzles are not easily broken, aswell as for rapid reset. To accomplish this, paper components were laminated, consumableswere prepared in duplicates in advance, puzzle components and locks were labeled withthe puzzle number and Battle Box number, several puzzle features were affixed to theBattle Box to avoid their removal, and facilitators were pre-trained on puzzle solution andprovided with a list of lock combinations [55,69,70]. Similar designs such as hexagonalescape boxes [41], condensed escape activities [72], and paper-based puzzles incorporatingsmall tactile components [65] have emerged, helping to increase applicability and mobilityof the escape rooms while retaining tactile components—an important feature in chemistryescape rooms—mimicking research-style exploration and experimentation.While hands-on experimentation is an asset, it is important to remember that not everyaspect of a puzzle needs to be a “wet” experiment. Mock experiments may be incorporated,challenging students to utilize research observation-based clues in puzzle solution. Tactilitycan also be incorporated by utilizing different types of locks such as directional locks,color-coded locks, key locks, and combination locks [63,66]. If the code is a shape, such asa reaction coordinate diagram or graph, a directional lock could be considered. Similarly,color-based locks can be helpful in puzzles following reaction kinetics such as the iodineclock [153] or those focused on the utilization of acid–base indicators. By tailoring ouractivity design approach to target larger-enrolment courses and activity reuse, escapeEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 34 of 44room activities are more likely to remain prevalent as a gamified learning approach infuture years. We expect that as educators move away from the traditional view of escaperooms and immersive rooms, we will begin to see more activity development applicable tolarger course sizes. In pursuit of this goal, we have included Section 3, exploring designconsiderations during escape room activity development. We hope that this, and thereferences within, can act as a guide for the interested educator.Similarly to concerns noted by Lathwesen and Belova in their review of STEM escaperooms [47], chemistry-focused escape rooms are still limited in their interdisciplinarynature as well as divisional content, with most activities focused on learning objectivesin general chemistry. An overview of available chemistry escape activities is located inAppendix A. For example, there is a noticeable lack of puzzles focusing on inorganicchemistry (0), upper-year physical chemistry (0), and organic chemistry (3), specifically,synthesis (1) and environmental/green chemistry (2). However, of the existing escaperooms, there appears to be a good balance between fully immersive rooms, condensedescape activities, paper-based puzzles, and online content, showcasing the communityefforts to design more applicable and accessible escape room strategies. Similarly, thereis a balance between laboratory-style learning (experimentation, analysis of results) andapplications of lecture-based learning to exam-like problems. The development of digitaland VR-based escape rooms in chemistry has likewise opened doors for online learningfocused on experimentation that might not be possible in a laboratory space, or the 3Dvisualization of chemical species, a benefit to students that struggle with concepts such assymmetry and stereochemistry.We also find, compared to previous reviews, that there is a larger body of literatureand empirical evidence on the effectiveness of active learning techniques, gamified learning,and escape-room-style activities. Overall, evidence suggests that chemistry-focused escaperoom activities are effective in developing stronger student understanding of course content,enhancing student laboratory skills, increasing student motivation, and increasing studentself-efficacy, as well as promoting student collaboration, teamwork, and communication.For the latter, in-person escape rooms provide a more effective learning environment forteamwork, although online platforms such as Zoom and Teams have been shown to beeffective for collaboration. We envision that research on the effectiveness of escape roomactivities will continue, although we hope to see more evidence on the specific gamingcomponents that increase student understanding and engagement. For example, are “wet”or mock experimentation-focused puzzles more effective then ciphers or riddles? Doesremoving classical escape-room-style puzzles (hidden items, surprise reveals) decreasestudents’ sense of immersion or motivation to complete the activity? By attempting toanswer these questions we will be able to better design condensed escape room activities.Ultimately, what do we recommend based on this literature review? For instructorswith limited infrastructure (i.e., time, costs, learning technologies, or spaces are prohibitive),there are a multitude of existing escape-room-style puzzles outlined that vary in materialsneeded. This is especially true of escape-room-style puzzles designed for students in generalchemistry courses. For instructors across chemical sub-disciplines under-represented inescape-room-style puzzles, there is much opportunity to develop new escape rooms withvarious demands and sophistication. These escape rooms can be delivered electronically orin person. We recommend that instructors who develop new escape-room-style puzzles useour guiding questions centered around audience, purpose, and accessibility in their design,and assess the efficacy of their new teaching tool as outlined in Section 5. We envision thatin alignment with improving the applicability of escape room activities in large-enrolmentclassrooms that we will see an influx of condensed escape activities, laboratory-focusedactivities, and online platforms. In the development of these materials, it is imperative thateducators share not only the preliminary puzzles but provide blueprints, printable files,puzzle solutions, and facilitation guides, allowing for the ready implementation of theseactivities at other institutions. Similarly, while there is a small repository of escape activitiesprovided by the Royal Society of Chemistry [73], educators and educational journals shouldEduc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 35 of 44work to develop an online repository of activities, aiming for open access, to allow for aconsolidate list of available escape rooms, their type, the size of participant groups, cost,time, and topic.Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the original draft preparation, as well asreview and editing, M.L.C.; supervision and project administration. All authors have read and agreedto the published version of the manuscript.Funding: This research received no external funding.Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study.Acknowledgments: M.L.C thanks her co-authors for their dedication to the manuscript alongsidetheir many additional responsibilities at their host-institutions. The ability to collaborate authenticallyonline is reflected in the unique perspectives and advice contained within the article, from bothresearch and education focused chemists, providing a deeper view on the applications and out-comesof chemistry escape rooms.Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.Appendix ATable A1. Overview of recent chemistry escape rooms.Name Division Topic Type Students Time toPlay RefEscapeClassRoom GeneralAnalytical chemistry|scientific method|acids andbases|chromatography Full Room Groups of 6–10 60 min [48]Break Dalton’sCode and Escape! GeneralConductivity|acids and bases|structure andreactivity|thermodynamics|periodic table Full Room Groups of 5–6 60–90 min [49]EscapingBoredom GeneralChemicalreactions|kinetics|thermodynamics|structureand bondingFull room Groups of 4 20 min [62]Quantum EscapeGame GeneralAnalytical chem-istry|electrochemistry|spectroscopy|quantitativeanalysis|titration|calorimetryFull Room Groups < 7 180 min [57]Chemical Escape General Acids and bases|stoichiometry|periodic table Full Room Groups of 4–6 40–60 min [61]Physical andDigitalEducationalEscape RoomGeneral Structure and bonding|molecularinteractions|periodic trends Paper-based Groups of 8 25 min [65]Periodic Table ofElementsChemical EscapeRoomGeneral Periodic table|chromatography|optical properties Paper-based Groups of 6 90 min [108]EscapeClassroom: TheLeblanc ProcessGeneral Stoichiometry|Leblanc process|chemical reactions Paper-based Groups of 5–7 60 min [63]Escape the DesertIsland GeneralPharmaceutical chemistry|acids andbases|kinetics|thermodynamics|nomenclature Blended Groups of <7 160 min [154]ChemEscape:GeneralChemistryGeneral Density|buoyancy |thin-layerchromatography|electrochemical cells Battle Box Groups of 2–4 30–60 min [69]ChemEscape:Redox andThermodynamicsGeneralThermodynamics|redox|chemicalequilibria|equilibrium constants|Gibb’s freeenergy|electrochemical cells|indicatorsBattle Box Groups of 2–4 30–60 min [55]The MaskedScientist GeneralStoichiometry|radioactive decay|chemistryapplications Online Groups of 3–4 30 min [79]Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 36 of 44Table A1. Cont.Name Division Topic Type Students Time toPlay RefHarry PotterThemed DigitalEscape RoomGeneral Stoichiometry|chemical formulae|structure andbonding|periodic table Online Groups of 3–6 30 min [150]Mirror Mirror onthe Wall GeneralStructure andbonding|stereochemistry|pharmaceuticalchemistryOnline Groups of 2 50 min [82]AR EscapeClassroom: TheLeblanc Processand the SolvayProcessGeneral Periodic table|stoichiometry|Leblancprocess|Solvay process Online Groups of 5–7 60 min [112]Escape the Lab Analytical Analytical chemistry|spectroscopy|chromatography|periodic table Full Room Groups of 4–6 60 min [56]NonsterileCompoundingEscape RoomMedicinal Pharmaceutical chemistry|compoundingmedications|conversions Paper-based Groups of 2–3 40 min [155]ChemEscape:Organic Reactionsand SpectroscopyOrganicNMR spectroscopy|IR spectroscopy|massspectrometry|substitution reactions (SN1,SN2)|elimination reactions (E1, E2)Battle Box Groups of 2–4 30–60 min [71]ChemistryEscape–Findthe WayOrganic Alcohols|aldehydes|carboxylic acids |coloringagents|esters Paper-Based Groups of 2–4 30–60 min [156]Chem’Sc@pe OrganicOrganic chemistry|nomenclature|stereochemistry|hybridization|chromatographyOnline Groups of 3–4 60 min [83]Plastic andRecycling for Artsand FashionStudentsPolymers Material properties|manufacturingprocesses|sustainability Blended Groups of 6 50–70 min [157]ChemEscape:PolymerChemistryPolymers Polymer chemistry|structure and properties| Battle Box Groups of 2–4 30–60 min [70]Break Out Safety Safety Laboratory safety training Full Room Groups of 3 30 min [158]Waving the GreenFlag: LCA Escape GreenPolymers|catalysts|biopolymers|sustainability|green metrics|life cycle analysis Paper-based Groups of 2–3 20 min [67]Saving the Earth GreenEnvironmental chemistry|atmosphericchemistry|chemistry applications|polymerchemistry|inorganic and organic compoundsOnline Groups of 3 35 min [159]Can You Make ItBack to Earth? GreenGreen chemistry|renewablematerials|waste|pollution |greenmetrics|catalysisOnline Groups of 2–4 30–50 min [152]Escape theEnvironmentalCrisisGreen Spectroscopy|symmetry|elementalanalysis|nanomaterials Online Groups > 2 60 min [111]Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 37 of 44Table A2. Overview of recent chemistry games (card games, boardgames, etc.).Name Division Topic Game Type ReferenceFamilies of ChemicalElements General Chemical elements|periodic table Card Game [160]SeArCH General Periodic table Card Game [161]Rare Earth Elements General Rare earth elements Card Game [161]Periodica General Periodic table Card Game [162]Groupica General Elements Card Game [162]Mendeleev’s Cards General Periodic table Card Game [163]CountQuest General Effective atomic number concept Card Game [164]ChemMend General Periodic table Card Game [96]Acid–Base Poker General Acid–base chemistry Card Game [165]Compoundia General Compounds Boardgame [162]Fun with Flags andChemistry General Chemical complexes Boardgame [166]Orbital Battleship General Orbitals|Hund’s rule|quantum numbers Boardgame [167]Chemical Pursuit General Elements|structures|thermodynamics|acid–base Boardgame [168]CHEMTrans General Stoichiometry|balancing equations Boardgame [169]Chemistry and Chaos General Elements|structures|thermodynamics|acid–base Role Play [170]BingOrbital Game General Orbitals|quantum numbers Online Game [171]Organic ChemistryCassino Organic Synthesis|functional group transformation Card Game [172]Go Fischer Organic Nomenclature|functionalgroups|preliminary reactivity Card Game [173]Retrosynthetic Rummy Organic Synthesis|retrosynthesis Card Game [174]Synthesis (Solitaire) Organic Synthesis|retrosynthesis Card Game [175]Synthetic Dominos Organic Synthesis|organic reactions Card Game [175]Carbohydeck Organic Bonding in carbohydrates Card Game [176]Act, Draw, ExplainYour Science Organic Naming|geometry|bonding Card Game [151]Prediction! TheVSEPR Game Organic VSEPR diagrams Card Game [177]LINK Organic Amino acids Card Game [161]1H NMR Spectrum Organic 1H NMR spectroscopy Boardgame [178]Texas Carbon Organic Bonding Boardgame [161]Tap It Fast! Organic Molecular symmetry Boardgame [179]Insulin–GlucagonGame Organic Metabolic effects|hormone action Boardgame [180]18 Electron Rule Inorganic Electron counting in transition metals Card Game [181]Complex Inorganic Transition metal complexes Card Game [181]SALC Inorganic Orbital arrangement Boardgame [181]Slap Count Inorganic Electron counting in transition metals Boardgame [181]Catalyst Towers Inorganic Green chemistry principles|catalystdevelopment|ligands|reaction conditions Boardgame [114]Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 38 of 44Table A2. Cont.Name Division Topic Game Type ReferenceRace to the Reactor Materials Polymers|functional group–physical propertiesrelationships Boardgame [151]Tetris Materials Crystal growth Online Game [182]Bioanalytical MurderMystery BiochemicalAnalytical techniques|protein separation|massspectrometry|HPLC Boardgame [183]Quantum Tic-Tac-Toe Computational Quantum chemistry|superposition inmovement|entanglement|state of collapse Online Game [184]Chemical Kinetics Computational Chemical kinetics|algorithms Boardgame [185]Green Machine Green Polymers|sustainability|recycling Card Game [186]Life CycleAnalysis Puzzle Green Green chemistry metrics|life cycle analysis Boardgame [114]Polizzies Green Sustainability|policy Boardgame [67]Conflicts in Chemistry Green Polymers|sustainability|policy Role Play [187]The Safer ChemicalDesign Game Green 12 principles of green chemistry Online Game [188]Note: this list is not comprehensive.References1. Krathwohl, D.R. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Pract. 2002, 41, 212–218. [CrossRef]2. Lalley, J.P.; Miller, R.H. The Learning Pyramid: Does It Point Teachers in the Right Direction? Education 2007, 128, 64–79.3. Arthurs, L.A.; Kreager, B.Z. An Integrative Review of In-Class Activities That Enable Active Learning in College ScienceClassroom Settings. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2017, 39, 2073–2091. [CrossRef]4. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S.L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M.K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M.P. Active Learning IncreasesStudent Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 8410–8415. [CrossRef]5. Misseyanni, A.; Papadopoulou, P.; Marouli, C.; Lytras, M.D. Active Learning Stories in Higher Education: Lessons Learned andGood Practices in STEM Education. In Active Learning Strategies in Higher Education; Misseyanni, A., Lytras, M.D., Papadopoulou,P., Marouli, C., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.: Leeds, UK, 2018; pp. 75–105. ISBN 9781787144873.6. Michael, J. Where’s the Evidence That Active Learning Works? Am. J. Physiol.—Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2006, 30, 159–167. [CrossRef]7. Armbruster, P.; Patel, M.; Johnson, E.; Weiss, M. Active Learning and Student-Centered Pedagogy Improve Student Attitudes andPerformance in Introductory Biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2009, 8, 203–213. [CrossRef]8. Addison, S.; Wright, A.; Milner, R. Using Clickers to Improve Student Engagement and Performance in an IntroductoryBiochemistry Class. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2009, 37, 84–91. [CrossRef]9. Flavell, J.H. Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving. In The Nature of Intelligence; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1976;pp. 231–236.10. Mutambuki, J.M.; Mwavita, M.; Muteti, C.Z.; Jacob, B.I.; Mohanty, S. Metacognition and Active Learning Combination RevealsBetter Performance on Cognitively Demanding General Chemistry Concepts than Active Learning Alone. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97,1832–1840. [CrossRef]11. Crimmins, M.T.; Midkiff, B. High Structure Active Learning Pedagogy for the Teaching of Organic Chemistry: Assessing theImpact on Academic Outcomes. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 429–438. [CrossRef]12. Theobald, E.J.; Hill, M.J.; Tran, E.; Agrawal, S.; Arroyo, E.N.; Behling, S.; Chambwe, N.; Cintrón, D.L.; Cooper, J.D.; Dunster,G.; et al. Active Learning Narrows Achievement Gaps for Underrepresented Students in Undergraduate Science, Technology,Engineering, and Math. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 6476–6483. [CrossRef]13. Deslauriers, L.; McCarty, L.S.; Miller, K.; Callaghan, K.; Kestin, G. Measuring Actual Learning versus Feeling of Learning inResponse to Being Actively Engaged in the Classroom. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 19251–19257. [CrossRef] [PubMed]14. Prince, M. Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. J. Eng. Educ. 2004, 93, 223–231. [CrossRef]15. Cho, H.J.; Melloch, M.R.; Levesque-Bristol, C. Enhanced Student Perceptions of Learning and Performance Using Concept-Point-Recovery Teaching Sessions: A Mixed-Method Approach. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2021, 8, 32. [CrossRef]16. Hancock, L.M. Student Perceptions of Team-Based Learning in an Advanced Inorganic Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2024,101, 910–920. [CrossRef]17. Iyamuremye, A.; Mukiza, J.; Nsabayezu, E.; Ukobizaba, F.; Ndihokubwayo, K. Web-Based Discussions in Teaching and Learning:Secondary School Teachers’ and Students’ Perception and Potentiality to Enhance Students’ Performance in Organic Chemistry.Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 2695–2715. [CrossRef]Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 39 of 4418. Salter, N.P.; Conneely, M.R. Structured and Unstructured Discussion Forums as Tools for Student Engagement. Comput. Hum.Behav. 2015, 46, 18–25. [CrossRef]19. Dietrich, N.; Kentheswaran, K.; Ahmadi, A.; Teychene, J.; Bessiere, Y.; Alfenore, S.; Laborie, S.; Bastoul, D.; Loubiere, K.; Guigui,C.; et al. Attempts, Successes, and Failures of Distance Learning in the Time of COVID-19. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 2448–2457.[CrossRef]20. Thatcher, D.; Robinson, J. ME—THE SLOW LEARNER and Some of Its Implications. Simulation-Gaming 1989, 258. [CrossRef]21. KOLB, D. The Process of Experiential Learning. In Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy; Elsevier: Upper Saddle River, NJ,USA, 2000; pp. 313–331.22. Thatcher, D.C. Promoting Learning through Games and Simulations. Simul. Gaming 1990, 21, 262–273. [CrossRef]23. Çeker, E.Ö.F. What “Gamification” Is and What It’s Not. Eur. J. Contemp. Educ. 2017, 6, 221–228.24. Zainuddin, Z.; Chu, S.K.W.; Shujahat, M.; Perera, C.J. The Impact of Gamification on Learning and Instruction: A SystematicReview of Empirical Evidence. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 30, 100326. [CrossRef]25. Buil, I.; Catalán, S.; Martínez, E. Understanding Applicants’ Reactions to Gamified Recruitment. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 110, 41–50.[CrossRef]26. Hamari, J.; Shernoff, D.J.; Rowe, E.; Coller, B.; Asbell-Clarke, J.; Edwards, T. Challenging Games Help Students Learn: AnEmpirical Study on Engagement, Flow and Immersion in Game-Based Learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 54, 170–179.[CrossRef]27. Pivec, M. Editorial: Play and Learn: Potentials of Game-based Learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2007, 38, 387–393. [CrossRef]28. Burguillo, J.C. Using Game Theory and Competition-Based Learning to Stimulate Student Motivation and Performance. Comput.Educ. 2010, 55, 566–575. [CrossRef]29. Cross, L.; Belshaw, F.; Piovesan, A.; Atherton, G. Game Changer: Exploring the Role of Board Games in the Lives of AutisticPeople. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2024, 33, 1–20. [CrossRef]30. Garris, R.; Ahlers, R.; Driskell, J.E. Games, Motivation, and Learning: A Research and Practice Model. Simul. Gaming 2002, 33,441–467. [CrossRef]31. Cheng, M.T.; She, H.C.; Annetta, L.A. Game Immersion Experience: Its Hierarchical Structure and Impact on Game-Based ScienceLearning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2015, 31, 232–253. [CrossRef]32. Kangas, M.; Koskinen, A.; Krokfors, L. A Qualitative Literature Review of Educational Games in the Classroom: The Teacher’sPedagogical Activities. Teach. Teach. 2017, 23, 451–470. [CrossRef]33. Watson, W.R.; Mong, C.J.; Harris, C.A. A Case Study of the In-Class Use of a Video Game for Teaching High School History.Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 466–474. [CrossRef]34. Russell, J.V. Using Games To Teach Chemistry: An Annotated Bibliography. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 481. [CrossRef]35. Goldsmith, R.H. The Game of the Name. J. Chem. Educ. 1971, 48, 463. [CrossRef]36. Nicholson, S. Peeking Behind the Locked Door: A Survey of Escape Room Facilities. 2015. Available online: https://scottnicholson.com/pubs/erfacwhite.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2024).37. Trap Door Trap Door Immersive Experiences. Available online: https://www.trapdoorescape.com/escape-room-puzzles/(accessed on 17 September 2024).38. 401 Games Escape Room: The Game. Available online: https://store.401games.ca/products/escape-room-the-game (accessedon 17 September 2024).39. 401 Games Unlock!: Escape Adventures. Available online: https://store.401games.ca/products/unlock-escape-adventures?srsltid=AfmBOopbb9us4SMg50QtiVcwmi8THhj_k0B6V9_V6TUJftk2LTdOADIC (accessed on 17 September 2024).40. Clarke, S.; Arnab, S.; Morini, L.; Wood, O.; Green, K.; Masters, A.; Bourazeri, A. EscapED: A Framework for Creating Live-Action, Interactive Games for Higher/Further Education Learning and Soft Skills Development. In Proceedings of the EuropeanConference on Games-Based Learning, Paisley, UK, 6–7 October 2016; Volume 2016-January.41. Veldkamp, A.; Daemen, J.; Teekens, S.; Koelewijn, S.; Knippels, M.P.J.; van Joolingen, W.R. Escape Boxes: Bringing Escape RoomExperience into the Classroom. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 1220–1239. [CrossRef]42. Veldkamp, A.; van de Grint, L.; Knippels, M.C.P.J.; van Joolingen, W.R. Escape Education: A Systematic Review on Escape Roomsin Education. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 31, 100364. [CrossRef]43. Nguyen, T. Moving from Classroom to Escape Room. CEN Glob. Enterp. 2018, 96, 28–30. [CrossRef]44. Fotaris, P.; Mastoras, T. Escape Rooms for Learning: A Systematic Review. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference onGame Based Learning, Sophia Antipolis, France, 4–5 October 2018; ACPI: Reading, UK, 2019; Volume 2019, p. 30.45. Tempelman, C.H.L.; Rijgersberg, A.; Eijk, M. van der Introducing Theory in Practice: The Beneficiary Effects of TeachingChemistry in the Laboratory on Student Success. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 564–571. [CrossRef]46. Nicholson, S. Creating Engaging Escape Rooms for the Classroom. Child. Educ. 2018, 94, 44–49. [CrossRef]47. Lathwesen, C.; Belova, N. Escape Rooms in Stem Teaching and Learning—Prospective Field or Declining Trend? A LiteratureReview. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 308. [CrossRef]48. Ferreiro-González, M.; Amores-Arrocha, A.; Espada-Bellido, E.; Aliaño-Gonzalez, M.J.; Vázquez-Espinosa, M.; González-de-Peredo, A.V.; Sancho-Galán, P.; Álvarez-Saura, J.Á.; Barbero, G.F.; Cejudo-Bastante, C. Escape ClassRoom: Can You Solve a CrimeUsing the Analytical Process? J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 267–273. [CrossRef]Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 40 of 4449. Avargil, S.; Shwartz, G.; Zemel, Y. Educational Escape Room: Break Dalton’s Code and Escape! J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 2313–2322.[CrossRef]50. Avargil, S. Knowledge and Skills of University Students in Chemistry-Related Departments as Expressed in a Specially DesignedEscape-Room. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2022, 31, 680–690. [CrossRef]51. Binkley, M.; Erstad, O.; Herman, J.; Raizen, S.; Ripley, M.; Miller-Ricci, M.; Rumble, M. Defining Twenty-First Century Skills. InAssessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 17–66. [CrossRef]52. Qian, M.; Clark, K.R. Game-Based Learning and 21st Century Skills: A Review of Recent Research. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 63,50–58. [CrossRef]53. Carmel, J.H.; Herrington, D.G.; Posey, L.A.; Ward, J.S.; Pollock, A.M.; Cooper, M.M. Helping Students to “Do Science”: Character-izing Scientific Practices in General Chemistry Laboratory Curricula. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 423–434. [CrossRef]54. Clark, T.M.; Ricciardo, R.; Weaver, T. Transitioning from Expository Laboratory Experiments to Course-Based UndergraduateResearch in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 56–63. [CrossRef]55. Clapson, M.L.; Schechtel, S.; Gilbert, B.; Mozol, V.J. ChemEscape: Redox and Thermodynamics–Puzzling Out Key Concepts inGeneral Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 415–422. [CrossRef]56. Vergne, M.J.; Simmons, J.D.; Bowen, R.S. Escape the Lab: An Interactive Escape-Room Game as a Laboratory Experiment. J. Chem.Educ. 2019, 96, 985–991. [CrossRef]57. Musgrove, H.B.; Ward, W.M.; Hiatt, L.A. Escape from Quant Lab: Using Lab Skill Progression and a Final Project to EngageStudents. J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 2307–2312. [CrossRef]58. Elliott, M.J.; Stewart, K.K.; Lagowski, J.J. The Role of the Laboratory in Chemistry Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 145–149.[CrossRef]59. Drace, K. Gamification of the Laboratory Experience to Encourage Student Engagement. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 2013, 14, 273–274.[CrossRef]60. Mahomed, M.; Sisodia, L.; Williams, D.P.; Villa-Marcos, B. Spectroscopy Unlocked: An Escape Room Activity for IntroductoryChemistry Courses. J. Chem. Educ. 2024, 101, 2570–2575. [CrossRef]61. Peleg, R.; Yayon, M.; Katchevich, D.; Moria-Shipony, M.; Blonder, R. A Lab-Based Chemical Escape Room: Educational, Mobile,and Fun! J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 955–960. [CrossRef]62. Watermeier, D.; Salzameda, B. Escaping Boredom in First Semester General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 961–964. [CrossRef]63. Dietrich, N. Escape Classroom: The Leblanc Process—An Educational “Escape Game”. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 996–999.[CrossRef]64. Oesper, R.E. Nicolas Leblanc (1742−1806). J. Chem. Educ. 1942, 19, 567. [CrossRef]65. Ang, J.W.J.; Ng, Y.N.A.; Liew, R.S. Physical and Digital Educational Escape Room for Teaching Chemical Bonding. J. Chem. Educ.2020, 97, 2849–2856. [CrossRef]66. Doughty, R.M. Project: Lockbox–A Reusable Escape-Room-Style Activity for the Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2024, 101, 682–686.[CrossRef]67. Clapson, M.L.; Bannard, G.; Daliaho, G.; Hong, J.; Davy, E.; Pitsiaeli, J.; Durfy, C.; Schechtel, S. Waving the Green Flag:Incorporating Sustainable and Green Chemistry Practice into Research and Education. J. Chem. Educ. 2024. submitted.68. Taraldsen, L.H.; Haara, F.O.; Lysne, M.S.; Jensen, P.R.; Jenssen, E.S. A Review on Use of Escape Rooms in Education—Touchingthe Void. Educ. Inq. 2022, 13, 169–184. [CrossRef]69. Clapson, M.L.; Gilbert, B.; Mozol, V.J.; Schechtel, S.; Tran, J.; White, S. ChemEscape: Educational Battle Box Puzzle Activities forEngaging Outreach and Active Learning in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 125–131. [CrossRef]70. Gilbert, B.C.T.; Clapson, M.L.; Musgrove, A. ChemEscape, Polymer Chemistry: Solving Interactive Puzzles Featuring ScaffoldedLearning to Promote Student Understanding of Polymers and Structure–Property Relationships. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97,4055–4062. [CrossRef]71. Clapson, M.L. Organocobalt PCcarbeneP Complexes for Small Molecule Activation & SoTL Explorations in the Gamification ofLearning in General, Organic, and Polymer Chemistry. Doctoral Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, 2021.72. Strippel, C.G.; Philipp Schröder, T.; Sommer, K. Experimentelle Escape Box. Chem. Unserer Zeit 2022, 56, 50–56. [CrossRef]73. Escape the Classroom|Article|RSC Education. Available online: https://edu.rsc.org/ideas/escape-the-classroom/4012053.article (accessed on 2 November 2024).74. ChemEscape Consulting Inc. Available online: https://clapsonresearch.squarespace.com/chemescape (accessed on 18 September2024).75. Nickerson, L.A.; Shea, K.M. First-Semester Organic Chemistry during COVID-19: Prioritizing Group Work, Flexibility, andStudent Engagement. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 3201–3205. [CrossRef]76. Makri, A.; Vlachopoulos, D.; Martina, R.A. Digital Escape Rooms as Innovative Pedagogical Tools in Education: A SystematicLiterature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4587. [CrossRef]77. Vergne, M.J.; Smith, J.D.; Bowen, R.S. Escape the (Remote) Classroom: An Online Escape Room for Remote Learning. J. Chem.Educ. 2020, 97, 2845–2848. [CrossRef]78. Elford, D.; Lancaster, S.J.; Jones, G.A. Stereoisomers, Not Stereo Enigmas: A Stereochemistry Escape Activity IncorporatingAugmented and Immersive Virtual Reality. J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1691–1704. [CrossRef]Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 41 of 4479. Haimovich, I.; Yayon, M.; Adler, V.; Levy, H.; Blonder, R.; Rap, S. “The Masked Scientist”: Designing a Virtual Chemical EscapeRoom. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 3502–3509. [CrossRef]80. Schultz, M.; Allsebrook, A.; Wajrak, M.; Delaney, S. A Practical Problem: Teaching and Learning Chemistry Online. Availableonline: https://chemaust.raci.org.au/article/julyaugust-2020/practical-problem-teaching-and-learning-chemistry-online.html(accessed on 29 September 2020).81. Laricheva, E.N.; Ilikchyan, A. Exploring the Effect of Virtual Reality on Learning in General Chemistry Students with LowVisual-Spatial Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 589–596. [CrossRef]82. Abdul Rahim, A.S. Mirror Mirror on the Wall: Escape a Remote Virtual Stereochemistry Lab Together. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99,2160–2167. [CrossRef]83. Roy, B.; Gasca, S.; Winum, J.-Y. Chem’Sc@pe: An Organic Chemistry Learning Digital Escape Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100,1382–1391. [CrossRef]84. Staller, M.S.; Koerner, S. Beyond Classical Definition: The Non-Definition of Gamification. SN Comput. Sci. 2021, 2, 88. [CrossRef]85. Chapman, J.R.; Rich, P.J. Does Educational Gamification Improve Students’ Motivation? If so, Which Game Elements Work Best?J. Educ. Bus. 2018, 93, 314–321. [CrossRef]86. Li, P.Y.; Chou, Y.K.; Chen, Y.J.; Chiu, R. Sen Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in Interactive Design: A Case Study of Escape theRoom Puzzle Design. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Innovation and Invention, ICKII,Jeju, Republic of Korea, 23–27 July 2018.87. Karageorgiou, Z.; Mavrommati, E.; Fotaris, P. Escape Room Design as a Game-Based Learning Process for STEAM Education.In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game Based Learning, Sophia Antipolis, France, 4–5 October 2018; ACPI:Reading, UK, 2019; pp. 378–385.88. Antunes, M.; Pacheco, M.A.R.; Giovanela, M. Design and Implementation of an Educational Game for Teaching Chemistry inHigher Education. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 517–521. [CrossRef]89. Franco, P.F.; DeLuca, D.A. Learning Through Action: Creating and Implementing a Strategy Game to Foster Innovative Thinkingin Higher Education. Simul. Gaming 2019, 50, 23–43. [CrossRef]90. Huang, S.Y.; Kuo, Y.H.; Chen, H.C. Applying Digital Escape Rooms Infused with Science Teaching in Elementary School: LearningPerformance, Learning Motivation, and Problem-Solving Ability. Think. Ski. Creat. 2020, 37, 100681. [CrossRef]91. Eric Nybo, S.; Sahr, M.; Young, M.; Axford, K.; Sohn, M.; Lyons, M.; Klepser, M. Design of a Large-Scale Escape Room forFirst-Year Pharmacy Student Orientation. Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 2020, 12, 1340–1347. [CrossRef]92. de Souza, R.T.M.P.; Kasseboehmer, A.C. The Thalidomide Mystery: A Digital Escape Room Using Genially and WhatsApp forHigh School Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 1132–1139. [CrossRef]93. Zhang, X.C.; Lee, H.; Rodriguez, C.; Rudner, J.; Chan, T.M.; Papanagnou, D. Trapped as a Group, Escape as a Team: ApplyingGamification to Incorporate Team-Building Skills Through an ‘Escape Room’ Experience. Cureus 2018, 10, e2256. [CrossRef]94. Martens, S.; Crawford, K. Embracing Wonder and Curiosity: Transforming Teacher Practice through Escape Room Design. Child.Educ. 2019, 95, 68–75. [CrossRef]95. Pan, R.; Lo, H.; Neustaedter, C. Collaboration, Awareness, and Communication in Real-Life Escape Rooms. In Proceedings of the2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, New York, NY, USA, 10–14 June 2017; pp. 1353–1364.96. Martí-Centelles, V.; Rubio-Magnieto, J. ChemMend: A Card Game to Introduce and Explore the Periodic Table While EngagingStudents’ Interest. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 868–871. [CrossRef]97. Taras, M. Summative and Formative Assessment. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2008, 9, 172–192. [CrossRef]98. Abrahamson, D. Building Educational Activities for Understanding: An Elaboration on the Embodied-Design Framework and ItsEpistemic Grounds. Int. J. Child. Comput. Interact. 2014, 2, 1–16. [CrossRef]99. de Hei, M.; Strijbos, J.W.; Sjoer, E.; Admiraal, W. Thematic Review of Approaches to Design Group Learning Activities in HigherEducation: The Development of a Comprehensive Framework. Educ. Res. Rev. 2016, 18, 33–45. [CrossRef]100. Sousa, C.; Rye, S.; Sousa, M.; Torres, P.J.; Perim, C.; Mansuklal, S.A.; Ennami, F. Playing at the School Table: Systematic LiteratureReview of Board, Tabletop, and Other Analog Game-Based Learning Approaches. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1160591. [CrossRef][PubMed]101. Sousa, M.; Bernardo, E. Back in the Game. Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci. 2019, 1164 CCIS, 72–85. [CrossRef]102. Play to Learn: Everything You Need to Know About Designing Effective Learning Games: Boller, Sharon, Kapp, Karl:9781562865771: Books—Amazon.Ca. Available online: https://www.amazon.ca/Play-Learn-Everything-Designing-Effective/dp/1562865773 (accessed on 2 November 2024).103. Allcoat, D.; Evans, C. Meaningful Game Design; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2023.104. Maurer, B.; Fuchsberger, V. Dislocated Boardgames: Design Potentials for Remote Tangible Play. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2019,3, 72. [CrossRef]105. Triboni, E.; Weber, G. MOL: Developing a European-Style Board Game to Teach Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95,791–803. [CrossRef]106. Gee, J.P. What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy. Comput. Entertain. 2003, 1, 20. [CrossRef]107. Sidekerskiene˙, T.; Damaševicˇius, R. Out-of-the-Box Learning: Digital Escape Rooms as a Metaphor for Breaking Down Barriers inSTEM Education. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7393. [CrossRef]Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 42 of 44108. Yayon, M.; Rap, S.; Adler, V.; Haimovich, I.; Levy, H.; Blonder, R. Do-It-Yourself: Creating and Implementing a Periodic Table ofthe Elements Chemical Escape Room. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 132–136. [CrossRef]109. Prensky, M. Digital Game-Based Learning. Comput. Entertain. 2003, 1, 21. [CrossRef]110. Borrás-Gené, O.; Díez, R.M.; Macías-Guillén, A. Digital Educational Escape Room Analysis Using Learning Styles. Information2022, 13, 522. [CrossRef]111. Cash, A.R.; Penick, J.R.; Todd, C.F.; So, M.C. Escaping the Environmental Crises: Online Escape Rooms for Evaluating StudentData Analysis Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 4530–4535. [CrossRef] [PubMed]112. Estudante, A.; Dietrich, N. Using Augmented Reality to Stimulate Students and Diffuse Escape Game Activities to LargerAudiences. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 1368–1374. [CrossRef]113. Flippity.Net: Flashcards and Other Resources for Educators and Learners. Available online: https://www.flippity.net/ (accessedon 18 September 2024).114. Clapson, M.L.; Davy, E.; Durfy, C.; Schechtel, S.; Scott, S.S. An Interactive Exploration of the Societal Impacts of InorganicChemistry—A Base Metal View on Sustainable Catalysis. Chem. Educ. Res. Submitted for publication. 2024.115. Broad, H.; Carey, N.; Williams, D.P.; Blackburn, R.A.R. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Chemistry Student and StaffPerceptions of Their Learning/Teaching Experience. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 664–671. [CrossRef]116. Kim, S.; Song, K.; Lockee, B.; Burton, J. Theories for Gamification in Learning and Education. In Gamification in Learning andEducation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 39–47. [CrossRef]117. Korthagen, F.A.J.; Kessels, J.P.A.M. Linking Theory and Practice: Changing the Pedagogy of Teacher Education. Educ. Res. 1999,28, 4–17. [CrossRef]118. Fai Ng, Y.; Kit Chan, K.; Lei, H.; Mok, P.; Yu Leung, S. Pedagogy and Innovation in Science Education: A Case Study of anExperiential Learning Science Undergraduate Course. Eur. J. Social. Behav. Sci. EJSBS 2019, 25. [CrossRef]119. Kishimoto, K. Anti-Racist Pedagogy: From Faculty’s Self-Reflection to Organizing within and beyond the Classroom. Race Ethn.Educ. 2018, 21, 540–554. [CrossRef]120. Davis, B.; Francis, K. Discourses on Learning in Education:Making Sense of a Landscape of Difference. Front. Educ. 2021, 6,760867. [CrossRef]121. Anguas-Gracia, A.; Subirón-Valera, A.B.; Antón-Solanas, I.; Rodríguez-Roca, B.; Satústegui-Dordá, P.J.; Urcola-Pardo, F. AnEvaluation of Undergraduate Student Nurses’ Gameful Experience While Playing an Escape Room Game as Part of a CommunityHealth Nursing Course. Nurse Educ. Today 2021, 103, 104948. [CrossRef]122. Elford, D.; Lancaster, S.J.; Jones, G.A. Fostering Motivation toward Chemistry through Augmented Reality Educational EscapeActivities. A Self-Determination Theory Approach. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 3406–3417. [CrossRef]123. Azizan, M.T.; Mellon, N.; Ramli, R.M.; Yusup, S. Improving Teamwork Skills and Enhancing Deep Learning via Development ofBoard Game Using Cooperative Learning Method in Reaction Engineering Course. Educ. Chem. Eng. 2018, 22, 1–13. [CrossRef]124. Brigham, T.J. An Introduction to Gamification: Adding Game Elements for Engagement. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 2015, 34, 471–480.[CrossRef] [PubMed]125. Toda, A.M.; Oliveira, W.; Klock, A.C.; Palomino, P.T.; Pimenta, M.; Gasparini, I.; Shi, L.; Bittencourt, I.; Isotani, S.; Cristea, A.I. ATaxonomy of Game Elements for Gamification in Educational Contexts: Proposal and Evaluation. In Proceedings of the IEEE 19thInternational Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT, Maceio, Brazil, 15–18 July 2019; pp. 84–88. [CrossRef]126. Sailer, M.; Hense, J.U.; Mayr, S.K.; Mandl, H. How Gamification Motivates: An Experimental Study of the Effects of Specific GameDesign Elements on Psychological Need Satisfaction. Comput. Human. Behav. 2017, 69, 371–380. [CrossRef]127. Faber, T.J.E.; Dankbaar, M.E.W.; van den Broek, W.W.; Bruinink, L.J.; Hogeveen, M.; van Merriënboer, J.J.G. Effects of AdaptiveScaffolding on Performance, Cognitive Load and Engagement in Game-Based Learning: A Randomized Controlled Trial. BMCMed. Educ. 2024, 24, 943. [CrossRef]128. Escape Rooms—Center for Inspired Teaching. Available online: https://inspiredteaching.org/escape-rooms/ (accessed on 18September 2024).129. Fuchs, L.S.; Deno, S.L. Developing Goals and Objectives for Educational Programs. Module 1982, 97, 1–93.130. Free Online Escape Room Templates|Genially. Available online: https://genially.com/templates/gamification/escape-room/(accessed on 18 September 2024).131. Laerdal Medical: Simulation Escape Room. Available online: https://laerdal.com/ca/search/?currenttab=Content&searchterm=escape%20room&itemsPerPage=12&page=1&sortBy=0 (accessed on 18 September 2024).132. Breakout EDU—Educational Games for the Classroom. Available online: https://www.breakoutedu.com/ (accessed on 18September 2024).133. Mobile Escape—Educational Games and for Teachers|Mystery Games for Parents. Available online: https://www.mobileescape.ca/teachers-and-parents (accessed on 18 September 2024).134. The Escape Classroom|Escape Rooms For The Classroom. Available online: https://www.theescapeclassroom.com/ (accessedon 18 September 2024).135. Clare, A. Escape the Game: How to Make Puzzles and Escape Rooms; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: Scotts Valley, CA,USA, 2016; ISBN 1536826855.Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 43 of 44136. Understanding Barriers to Accessibility: An Educator’s Perspective—Accessible Campus. Available online: https://accessiblecampus.ca/tools-resources/educators-tool-kit/understanding-barriers-to-accessibility-an-educators-perspective/(accessed on 10 January 2023).137. Sukhai, M.A.; Mohler, C.E.; Doyle, T.; Carson, E.; Nieder, C.; Levy-Pinto, D.; Duffett, E.; Smith, F. Creating an Accessible ScienceLaboratory Environment for Students with Disabilities. 2014. Available online: https://www.accessiblecampus.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Creating-an-Accessible-Science-Laboratory-Environment.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2024).138. Egambaram, O.; Hilton, K.; Leigh, J.; Richardson, R.; Sarju, J.; Slater, A.; Turner, B. The Future of Laboratory Chemistry Learningand Teaching Must Be Accessible. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 3814–3821. [CrossRef]139. Leslie, M. Boon Inclusive Teaching: Strategies for Promoting Equity in the College Classroom. J. Teach. Learn. 2023, 17, 149–151.[CrossRef]140. Schechtel, S.; Mozol, V.; Clapson, M.; Gilbert, B.; Tran, J.; White, S. The Name of the Game: Utilizing Experiential Learning in theClassroom to Engage, Empower and Reflect on Student Learning and Assessment. Pap. Postsecond. Learn. Teach. 2020, 4, 17–24.[CrossRef]141. Kafai, Y.B.; Burke, Q. Constructionist Gaming: Understanding the Benefits of Making Games for Learning. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 50,313–334. [CrossRef]142. Carolyn Yang, Y.T.; Chang, C.H. Empowering Students through Digital Game Authorship: Enhancing Concentration, CriticalThinking, and Academic Achievement. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 334–344. [CrossRef]143. Clapson, M.L.; Schechtel, S.; Davy, E.; Durfy, C.; Scott, S. Challenging the “Traditional” Conference Format—Perspectives fromOrganizers Developing an Interactive Symposium in Inorganic Chemistry. Can. J. Chem. 2024.144. Stains, M.; Harshman, J.; Barker, M.K.; Chasteen, S.V.; Cole, R.; DeChenne-Peters, S.E.; Eagan, M.K.; Esson, J.M.; Knight, J.K.;Laski, F.A.; et al. Anatomy of STEM Teaching in North American Universities. Science 2018, 359, 1468–1470. [CrossRef] [PubMed]145. Wang, Y.; Apkarian, N.; Dancy, M.H.; Henderson, C.; Johnson, E.; Raker, J.R.; Stains, M. A National Snapshot of IntroductoryChemistry Instructors and Their Instructional Practices. J. Chem. Educ. 2024, 101, 1457–1468. [CrossRef] [PubMed]146. Clark, T.M. Narrowing Achievement Gaps in General Chemistry Courses with and without In-Class Active Learning. J. Chem.Educ. 2023, 100, 1494–1504. [CrossRef]147. Bastyr, C.; Johnson, C.; Lakhan, R.; Wainman, J.W. Reducing Chemistry Casualties: Supporting Women Enrolled in GeneralChemistry I Not During Their First Term of College with Active Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 3089–3095. [CrossRef]148. Hernandez, D.; Jacomino, G.; Swamy, U.; Donis, K.; Eddy, S.L. Measuring Supports from Learning Assistants That PromoteEngagement in Active Learning: Evaluating a Novel Social Support Instrument. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2021, 8, 1–17. [CrossRef]149. Lhardy, C.; Reina, A. Identificat’ions: A Battle Card Game to Learn Chemical Tests and Practice Observation and Reasoning. J.Chem. Educ. 2024, 101, 1574–1582. [CrossRef]150. Cai, S. Harry Potter Themed Digital Escape Room for Addressing Misconceptions in Stoichiometry. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 2022,2747–2753. [CrossRef]151. Clapson, M.L.; Gilbert, B.C.T.; Musgrove, A. Race to the Reactor and Other Chemistry Games: Game-Based and ExperientialLearning Experiences in Materials and Polymer Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 4391–4399. [CrossRef]152. Lathwesen, C.; Eilks, I. Can You Make It Back to Earth? A Digital Educational Escape Room for Secondary Chemistry Educationto Explore Selected Principles of Green Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2024, 101, 3193–3201. [CrossRef]153. Mitchell, R.S.; Warren Villaescusa, F. Iodine Clock Reaction. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 783. [CrossRef]154. Abdul Rahim, A.S. Escape the Desert Island: Blended Escape Rooms in the First-Semester Problem-Based Learning. J. Chem.Educ. 2023, 100, 2459–2465. [CrossRef]155. Caldas, L.M.; Eukel, H.N.; Matulewicz, A.T.; Fernández, E.V.; Donohoe, K.L. Applying Educational Gaming Success to aNonsterile Compounding Escape Room. Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 2019, 11, 1049–1054. [CrossRef] [PubMed]156. Groß, K.; Schumacher, A. Chemistry Escape—Finde Den Weg. Chem. Unserer Zeit 2020, 54, 126–130. [CrossRef]157. Vázquez-López, A.; Artigas-Arnaudas, J.; Bedmar, J. Teaching Design, Arts, and Fashion Students about Plastics and Recycling:The Use of Online and Offline Escape Room Scenarios. J. Chem. Educ. 2024, 101, 1618–1625. [CrossRef]158. Nephew, S.; Sunasee, R. An Engaging and Fun Breakout Activity for Educators and Students about Laboratory Safety. J. Chem.Educ. 2021, 98, 186–190. [CrossRef]159. Trcˇková, K.; Maršálek, R.; Václavíková, Z. Saving the Earth: Mini Online Escape Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2024, 101, 215–222.[CrossRef]160. Franco Mariscal, A.J.; Oliva Martínez, J.M.; Bernal Márquez, S. An Educational Card Game for Learning Families of ChemicalElements. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1044–1046. [CrossRef]161. GAMES|D-Orbital Games. Available online: https://www.dorbitalgames.org/games (accessed on 4 September 2024).162. Bayir, E. Developing and Playing Chemistry Games to Learn about Elements, Compounds, and the Periodic Table: ElementalPeriodica, Compoundica, and Groupica. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 531–535. [CrossRef]163. Yang, S.H.; Choi, J.M. Mendeleev’s Cards: Educational Game to Learn Mendeleev’s Idea on the Periodic Table of Elements. J.Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 4925–4932. [CrossRef]164. Ru Tan, J.H.; Ang, W.H.; Foo, M.L. CountQuest: A Card Game Played on Zoom for Revising Effective Atomic Number Concept. J.Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2425–2430. [CrossRef]Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1273 44 of 44165. Zhang, X. Acid–Base Poker: A Card Game Introducing the Concepts of Acid and Base at the College Level. J. Chem. Educ. 2017,94, 606–609. [CrossRef]166. Coudret, C.; Dietrich, N. Fun with Flags and Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 4377–4384. [CrossRef]167. Kurushkin, M.; Mikhaylenko, M. Orbital Battleship: A Guessing Game to Reinforce Atomic Structure. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93,1595–1598. [CrossRef]168. Adair, B.M.; McAfee, L.V. Chemical Pursuit: A Modified Trivia Board Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 416–418. [CrossRef]169. Li, J.; Yang, M.A.; Xue, Z.H. CHEMTrans: Playing an Interactive Board Game of Chemical Reaction Aeroplane Chess. J. Chem.Educ. 2022, 99, 1060–1067. [CrossRef]170. Mendez, J.D. Chemistry and Chaos: A Role-Playing Game for Teaching Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 2442–2445. [CrossRef]171. Li, X.; Muñiz, M.; Chun, K.; Tai, J.; Guerra, F.; York, D.M. Inquiry-Based Activities and Games That Engage Students in LearningAtomic Orbitals. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2175–2181. [CrossRef]172. Bell, P.T.; Martinez-Ortega, B.A.; Birkenfeld, A. Organic Chemistry I Cassino: A Card Game for Learning Functional GroupTransformations for First-Semester Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 1625–1628. [CrossRef]173. Battersby, G.L.; Beeley, C.; Baguley, D.A.; Barker, H.D.; Broad, H.D.; Carey, N.C.; Chambers, E.S.; Chodaczek, D.; Blackburn,R.A.R.; Williams, D.P. Go Fischer: An Introductory Organic Chemistry Card Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 2226–2230. [CrossRef]174. Carney, J.M. Retrosynthetic Rummy: A Synthetic Organic Chemistry Card Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 328–331. [CrossRef]175. Farmer, S.C.; Schuman, M.K. A Simple Card Game To Teach Synthesis in Organic Chemistry Courses. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93,695–698. [CrossRef]176. Costa, M.J. CARBOHYDECK: A Card Game to Teach the Stereochemistry of Carbohyrates. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 977–978.[CrossRef]177. Erlina; Cane, C.; Williams, D.P. Prediction! The VSEPR Game: Using Cards and Molecular Model Building to Actively EnhanceStudents’ Understanding of Molecular Geometry. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 991–995. [CrossRef]178. Thammavongsy, Z.; Morris, M.A.; Link, R.D. 1 H NMR Spectrum: A Team-Based Tabletop Game for Molecular StructureElucidation. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 4385–4390. [CrossRef]179. Dagnoni Huelsmann, R.; Vailati, A.F.; Ribeiro De Laia, L.; Salvador Tessaro, P.; Xavier, F.R. Tap It Fast! Playing a MolecularSymmetry Game for Practice and Formative Assessment of Students’ Understanding of Symmetry Concepts. J. Chem. Educ. 2018,95, 1151–1155. [CrossRef]180. Conway, C.J.; Leonard, M. Insulin-Glucagon Interactions: Using a Game to Understand Hormonal Control. J. Chem. Educ. 2014,91, 536–540. [CrossRef]181. Thammavongsy, Z. Designing Educational Tabletop Games for the Inorganic Chemistry Classroom. ACS Symp. Ser. 2020, 1370,65–76. [CrossRef]182. García-Ruiz, J.M. Arcade Games for Teaching Crystal Growth. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 499–501. [CrossRef]183. Hill, A.M.; Harmer, N.J. A Murder Mystery Gamification Session to Consolidate Analytical Biochemical Techniques Learning. J.Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 4514–4524. [CrossRef]184. Hoehn, R.D.; Mack, N.; Kais, S. Using Quantum Games To Teach Quantum Mechanics, Part 2. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 423–427.[CrossRef]185. Kraska, T. Establishing a Connection for Students between the Reacting System and the Particle Model with Games and StochasticSimulations of the Arrhenius Equation. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 1951–1959. [CrossRef]186. Miller, J.L.; Wentzel, M.T.; Clark, J.H.; Hurst, G.A. Green Machine: A Card Game Introducing Students to Systems Thinking inGreen Chemistry by Strategizing the Creation of a Recycling Plant. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 3006–3013. [CrossRef] [PubMed]187. Cook, D.H. Conflicts in Chemistry: The Case of Plastics, A Role-Playing Game for High School Chemistry Students. J. Chem.Educ. 2014, 91, 1580–1586. [CrossRef]188. The Safer Chemical Design Game—Gamification of Green Chemistry and Safer Chemical Design Concepts for Students|PoorvuCenter for Teaching and Learning. Available online: https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/SafeChemicalGameDesign (accessed on 26March 2024).Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individualauthor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury topeople or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Article
eng
Reviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
CC BY 4.0
Faculty
gamification
escape room
humor/puzzles/games
active learning
chemistry education
undergraduate/general
applications of chemistry
Solving the Chemistry Puzzle : A Review on the Application of Escape-Room-Style Puzzles in Undergraduate Chemistry Teaching
Text