The primary instrument used for data collection was a structured questionnaire designed to assess the prevalence, awareness, usage, perception, and challenges of GBL in engineering education. The questionnaire was divided into four main sections. The questionnaire primarily used a Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) to capture the degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement, allowing for a nuanced analysis of responses [7]. Additionally, a few open-ended questions were included to gather qualitative insights, such as participants’ personal experiences with GBL or suggestions for improving its integration in engineering education.

The collected data were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative methods to provide a comprehensive understanding of the findings.

For the quantitative analysis, statistical techniques were employed to examine the data collected from the Likert-scale questions. Frequency analysis was conducted to identify the most common responses for each question, revealing trends in awareness, usage, perception, and challenges of GBL. The mean and standard deviation were calculated to measure the central tendency and variability of responses, respectively, providing insights into the general attitudes towards GBL in engineering education. Additionally, correlation analysis was used to identify any significant relationships between variables, such as the correlation between awareness of GBL and its perceived effectiveness or between the frequency of GBL usage and student engagement levels. The qualitative data collected from open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic analysis. This approach involved identifying recurring themes and patterns in participants' responses to gain deeper insights into their experiences with GBL. Thematic coding was applied to categorize responses into key themes such as "Lack of awareness", "Resource challenges", "Positive impact on engagement", and "Need for lecturer training", which helped to contextualize the quantitative findings.

Overall, the combination of these data analysis techniques provided a thorough understanding of the prevalence, perception, and challenges of GBL in engineering education, as well as actionable insights for improving its implementation in Albanian universities.

The descriptive statistics, including mean, median, mode, and standard deviation, provided a detailed overview of the central tendencies and variability in responses regarding GBL in engineering education. Additionally, a correlation matrix was used to explore relationships between different questions.

The qualitative analysis offered deeper insights into both the advantages and obstacles of incorporating GBL in engineering education. Several key themes emerged from the participants' open-ended responses. Benefits of GBL: Students reported that when GBL was implemented, it made learning more engaging and interactive. They found it valuable for exploring complex engineering concepts in a more relaxed and playful setting. Additionally, some participants noted that GBL could enhance the learning experience, especially when it involved teamwork and problem-solving.

Challenges of implementing GBL: Many participants, including both students and lecturers, indicated a lack of awareness and familiarity with GBL in their courses, with some admitting they had never encountered it before. Several respondents observed that lecturers were often not sufficiently trained to use GBL effectively, resulting in inconsistent or ineffective application of game-based methods. This finding is consistent with the quantitative results, where a majority disagreed with the statement about lecturers being well-prepared for GBL implementation. Another commonly cited challenge was the shortage of resources, such as technological tools and support, which hindered the integration of GBL into the curriculum. Many students expressed the need for more investment in GBL infrastructure and training.

The qualitative responses revealed several key themes. On the positive side, participants acknowledged that GBL, when appropriately applied, could significantly enhance engagement and enjoyment in the learning process. However, negative aspects included widespread unawareness of GBL, inadequate lecturer training, insufficient implementation, and resource limitations. As for suggestions, participants emphasized the importance of providing better training for lecturers, more structured and frequent use of GBL, and greater emphasis on collaborative activities to make GBL more effective in engineering education Table 3.

Increased engagement Lack of awareness and Better training for when Gbl is used exposure lecturers Gbl’s potential to make Lecturers are More frequent and learning enjoyable unprepared structured use of GBL Insufficient Collaboration and implementation of GBL teamwork through GBL

Table 4 presents a correlation matrix for responses on a Likert scale ranging from "Response 1" (Strongly disagree) to "Response 5" (Strongly agree). The matrix shows how each response level correlates with the others, with correlation values ranging from -1 to 1, where a value of 1 indicates a perfect positive correlation, -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation, and 0 indicates no correlation. The analysis reveals that there is a strong negative correlation between "Response 1" and "Response 2" (-0.685), indicating that as the frequency of participants choosing "Strongly disagree" increases, the likelihood of selecting "Disagree" decreases significantly. This trend is logical since these two response categories represent opposite ends of disagreement. Similarly, "Response 1" and "Response 5" show a strong negative correlation (-0.623), meaning that as participants strongly disagreed with a statement, they were very unlikely to agree with it strongly. There is also a moderately negative correlation between "Response 2" and "Response 3" (-0.553), showing that as more respondents disagree, fewer remain neutral.

Additionally, a moderate negative correlation exists between "Response 3" and "Response 5" (-0.498), indicating that participants who are neutral are less likely to strongly agree. In terms of moderate positive correlations, there is a relationship between "Response 1" and "Response 3" (0.305), suggesting that some respondents who strongly disagree may have tendencies that align slightly toward a neutral stance. Another moderate positive correlation exists between "Response 2" and "Response 5" (0.36), indicating that participants who disagree with a statement might still see some merit or agree to some extent. On the other hand, the correlation between "Response 4" and all other responses shows relatively weak relationships, ranging from -0.098 to 0.034, suggesting that agreement is more independent of other response levels. It implies that participants who agreed did not have a strong alignment with any particular opposing response categories. The correlation matrix reveals a general pattern of opposition between extreme responses, such as "Strongly disagree" and "Strongly agree," while more moderate responses, like "Neutral," show varied relationships. This suggests that participants' responses are polarized, with fewer opting for middle-ground opinions. The polarization might indicate that attitudes toward the subject are quite definitive, with little room for indecision or ambiguity, making it critical to address why students and lecturers are either firmly in favor of or against GBL methodologies.

The results of this study have important implications for teaching practices and curriculum development in engineering education. The general lack of awareness and the perception that GBL is not frequently used point to the need for more structured integration of game-based methodologies into engineering programs. By incorporating GBL into the curriculum, educators can create more interactive and engaging learning environments, which could improve student motivation and enhance their understanding of complex engineering concepts. The moderate correlation between awareness and perceived effectiveness suggests that introducing students and lecturers to GBL through workshops, training sessions, or pilot projects could foster more positive attitudes toward its use. Implementing GBL in a consistent and structured manner could help students see its relevance, thereby making it a more accepted and effective tool for learning. Furthermore, the insights from this study could inform curriculum designers to explore and develop game-based activities that align with engineering objectives, such as simulations that mimic real-world engineering problems or gamified exercises that encourage collaboration and problem-solving. By embedding GBL into the curriculum, educators can help students develop essential skills such as critical thinking, teamwork, and adaptability, which are crucial for their future professional roles.

The main challenges identified by respondents include the lack of awareness, insufficient lecturer training, and a shortage of resources necessary to implement GBL effectively. Many participants felt that their lecturers were not adequately prepared to introduce GBL, and this lack of preparedness resulted in inconsistent or ineffective application. Addressing this challenge requires investing in professional development programs that equip lecturers with the skills and knowledge needed to integrate GBL into their teaching practices. Providing access to training workshops, resources, and platforms that support GBL can help bridge this gap and ensure that educators feel more confident in using GBL as part of their teaching toolkit. Another significant challenge is the scarcity of resources, such as technological tools and support, which hinders the successful implementation of GBL in engineering education. To overcome this, universities and policymakers could explore partnerships with technology providers, seek funding for digital infrastructure, or develop open-source GBL platforms tailored to engineering topics. Such initiatives would make it easier to incorporate GBL into the curriculum and ensure that both students and lecturers have the necessary tools to engage with these methodologies.

Despite these challenges, there are opportunities to enhance the use of GBL in engineering education. The fact that some participants acknowledged the potential of GBL to increase engagement and make learning more enjoyable suggests that, when implemented correctly, GBL can have a positive impact. By taking a gradual and well-planned approach to integrating GBL, starting with pilot programs or incorporating game-based elements into specific courses, educational institutions can build a foundation for more widespread adoption. This study provides a valuable starting point for understanding the current state of GBL in Albanian engineering education and offers insights into how it can be more effectively integrated to support the development of essential skills for future engineers.

To effectively incorporate GBL into engineering education, several practical strategies can be considered. First, educators should receive formal training on the design and implementation of GBL activities. Training programs can focus on how to align game-based methods with specific engineering concepts and how to facilitate these methods in the classroom. Studies have shown that lecturer preparedness is crucial for the successful integration of GBL, as a lack of familiarity can lead to inconsistent application and poor results. Educators could also benefit from workshops or professional development opportunities that teach them how to create engaging, interactive learning experiences using GBL frameworks. Second, educators should begin with pilot projects or limited integration of GBL activities in specific courses, allowing them to assess the impact on student engagement and learning outcomes before scaling these methods across broader curricula. Research has demonstrated that GBL can enhance problem-solving skills and increase engagement when applied correctly. These pilot projects can act as test cases, where educators can monitor student feedback and learning outcomes and make necessary adjustments for improvement. Third, incorporating collaborative activities into GBL can foster teamwork and collective problem-solving, which are critical skills in engineering education. Game-based activities that encourage collaboration have been shown to enhance both engagement and the development of key professional skills. Educators should design GBL tasks that require students to work together, solving engineering-related challenges in a way that mirrors real-world team dynamics. Fourth, resource allocation is essential for implementing GBL effectively. Institutions should invest in the necessary technological tools, such as simulation software and digital learning platforms, to support game-based activities in engineering courses. Lack of resources has been cited as one of the primary barriers to GBL adoption, so ensuring that educators have access to these tools is crucial for successful integration. Finally, educators should seek to balance traditional teaching methods with game-based approaches to ensure that students are exposed to a variety of learning techniques. While GBL has proven benefits, it should complement, rather than replace, conventional pedagogical strategies. This balanced approach can ensure that GBL enhances learning without overwhelming students or creating an over-reliance on game-based activities.

Future studies should explore the long-term impact of GBL on student performance and retention of engineering concepts. While this study has provided insights into the current state of GBL in Albanian engineering education, longitudinal research could help determine whether sustained exposure to GBL leads to improved learning outcomes and problem-solving skills over time. Understanding the long-term benefits would offer valuable data on the effectiveness of GBL as a teaching method. Another area for further research is the examination of how different types of game-based activities impact various aspects of engineering education. For example, comparative studies could investigate the effectiveness of simulation games versus role-playing games or digital gamified platforms versus physical board games in enhancing students' understanding of complex engineering concepts. Such studies would help educators identify which game-based strategies are most effective for different learning objectives and student preferences.

Additionally, there is a need to explore the role of instructor training in the successful implementation of GBL. Future research could assess the impact of professional development programs on lecturers' ability to effectively integrate GBL into their teaching practices and the subsequent effect on student engagement and learning outcomes. This could help institutions design more targeted training programs that equip educators with the necessary skills and knowledge to use GBL effectively. Investigating the barriers to GBL implementation from an institutional perspective would also be valuable. While this study has identified resource challenges, further research could explore how university policies, funding limitations, and infrastructure impact the adoption of GBL in engineering education. Understanding these institutional barriers could inform strategies for overcoming them, making it easier for educators to incorporate GBL into their courses. Finally, exploring students' attitudes and experiences with GBL across different cultural and geographical contexts would contribute to a more global understanding of its effectiveness. Comparative studies between countries with varying levels of GBL integration in their education systems could provide insights into how cultural factors influence the acceptance and success of game-based methodologies in engineering education.

The integration of Management Information Systems (MIS) within GBL frameworks presents a powerful approach to enhancing the strategic implementation and assessment of educational methodologies in engineering education. This study has shown that incorporating MIS can transform how educational institutions manage, monitor, and refine GBL strategies by providing real-time data and feedback, which is crucial for understanding the impact on both teaching practices and student learning outcomes. MIS offers the capability to track and analyze the effectiveness of game-based activities, helping instructors identify what works best in engaging students and improving problem-solving skills. The application of MIS can bridge gaps in GBL application by revealing areas that require improvement and ensuring that curriculum adjustments align with both institutional goals and student learning needs. This seamless integration supports educators in making data-driven decisions, adapting teaching methods, and optimizing course delivery to create a more interactive and personalized learning experience.

Furthermore, leveraging MIS in engineering education allows for better resource allocation and supports the consistent implementation of innovative teaching strategies, such as GBL, across multiple courses and disciplines. This comprehensive management approach empowers educators to align GBL tactics with broader learning objectives, fostering a dynamic and effective learning environment that prepares students to meet the demands of modern engineering practices. Future research should delve deeper into the role of MIS in fostering a balance between traditional and GBL methods, ensuring that these technologies are fully utilized to create adaptable, efficient, and impactful educational experiences.