This goes against all research that proves learner-centered active learning works best.

Perhaps a debrief after facilitated by the teacher would help with this.

Why focus solely on "educational" games? Earlier the authors mentionned games like LA Noire and World of Warcraft.

There are games now that use Math skills like no others before, such as the Kerbal Space program. I would be interested in seeing an update on this, with some newer research.

Thinking back to our cycle 1 reading about how GBL can reach everyone.

Is this because they were seeing the games as "homework"?

Have you ever felt like this? When I was in college, I had this feeling in my computer coding classes. I enjoyed coding for fun, but did not want to get evaluated on it. I eventually dropped that half of my major thinking I wouldn't enjoy it was a profession.

Would you consider this gamification of the work environment?

Yes! This becomes very evident once you have a child, or if you need to care for a child.

Full disclosure: I had to look this up, here's the definition - the gradual acquisition of the characteristics and norms of a culture or group by a person, another culture, etc

It is disappointing that they put all that time into it and didn't get a definitive answer.

I wonder if they were this excited about it!

Before reading the rest of the article, what do you think? Are we at the tipping point? Have we passed it?

I also play this game for fun. I have an embarrassing amount of "time played" in this game.

Interesting that they categorize this as a game that focuses directly on science. I have this game, and play for fun. What games do you play for fun that others might think focuses more on education?

I hope the quest reward is epic! I like that they are infusing game terminology in their article.

Especially with all the cuts from State funding.

Why don't they have anything like this for higher education professionals?

A list of some of the real-world problems they are trying to solve would be interesting.

As of right now, this is my field of choice for my (eventual) PhD. I had not seen this program!

@Remi, can we get a course like this at CU Denver?? :)

Imagine this project paired with a Skyrim affinity space!

A great examples of how GBL can teach multiple skills and competencies.

Great to see all the attention this course is getting across multiple disciplines!

See cycle 2 reading "Jenkins et al."

This brings us back to our week 1 readings and the "equity" factor.

We often get "We're paying you to teach us" line when students start at our college. We use a lot of active learning, and they're not used to it.

This is where utilizing college resources such as instructional designers and librarians comes into play. Also, collaborating with other departments can make this easier.

Why focus on "educational games"?

Going back a few cycles of our readings, note the differences between game based learning and gamification.

Anyone else that works in higher education see this yet? I personally have not.

HEVGA Website

What children's games do you think provides the most learning opportunities?

Do players from opposing teams enthusiastically offer bad advice to try to throw off the other team, or is that considered bad form?

So a game that strongly pairs collaboration with competition - perhaps even collaboration for the sake of competition - and not just competitiveness as means to some end.

If I'm understanding you correctly, it appears that "table talk" in a Korean play context is not forbidden, unlike in many American play contexts.

awesome, the manipulation of our physical surroundings for game play is really neat to learn about.

This game development history and lineage is awesome, thanks for sharing.

I'm so pleased to learn that this course provided the necessary excuse to play this game together after 10 years!

These are obvious design choice that were made, but I struggle to understand why? I struggle to find what the game has to gain through these choices. Including these design choices will not boost sales in any way (the artwork is not featured on the cover, thus it is not being used for market purposes). The target audience would probably have enjoyed the game just as much without these choices.

I love it when games do this. There are very few other media that has the potential to do this to the extent in which games can. I remember feeling similarly when playing Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. Do you feel that your in-game choice represent choices that you have made out-of-game, or did it just dismay you that made those choices in-game because of high ethical standards that you hold out-of-game? Please don't feel pressured to answer, as the nature of this question can be highly personal.

I like your critical thoughts here on the game's mechanics. Without having the benefit of actually playing this version of the game, your suggestions sound like it would make for richer/more rewarding experience.

Another interesting experiment would be to do a little cross-training. Play some action video games for a few months and then come back to this game to see if there is any noticeable performance boost.

So his attentional resources are strained in a more stimulating environment. I find this interesting because it contradicts what we would expect given his experience as an action video game player (from what we learned in Bavelier et al.). Do you ever take strategic advantage of this?

I was hoping for some comments on Blokus - I really love that game, and the various expansions, certainly one of my favorite board games in the past few years.

Yes, a nice little experiment. And if you do it, let us know what happens!

There's the connection - nice!

That's a really interesting observation!

It's interesting to read your attention to the strategy of visual information processing given the reading this cycle from Bevelier and colleagues. Any connections for you?

course design mission accomplished!

Have you ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? Your comment here reminds me of the author's perspective on defining "quality."

I was happy to see a clause that they can go back to making their claims if they gather appropriate evidence - it makes the precedent much clearer if people are referring back to this case that with proper evidence, you would be welcome to market your game/brain product/whatever as a tool. I think that's important when we're talking about what games might actually do for people.

In other words, do some controlled experiments in a lab and have your results peer reviewed before making outrageous claims. Because science.

Looking for competent and reliable scientific evidence about game play? This is why we're reading Bevelier and colleagues this cycle, too.

There seem to be some shades of gamification going on here...

Honestly, I struggled here: how to facilitate a meaningful discussion around an idea like misogyny, knowing that none of my colleagues would be defending it and assuming those participating in this discussion are all in agreement that it's a bad thing...All I could think of in response was to approach it from the opposite end. Similarly, in an earlier article I made a point to emphasize that negative male stereotypes are harmful to men as well. I struggled with how to make an engaging discussion out of what is essentially preaching to the choir... ILT5320

Perhaps yes, and that's one reason why Anita Sarkeesian (and others) are advancing their public critiques.

As noted in the video, the emphasis on accumulation is really important.

Yes, and perhaps also different disciplines

Great questions, and seems like a valuable professional learning opportunity for faculty. Maybe something you'd facilitate?

And as you note, also reflecting upon game play! Too frequently do educators forget to facilitate reflection following game play.

There's a nice parallel here to what some folks describe as active learning - certain activities in large courses will result in greater student learning outcomes in comparison to more passive learning (often via instructor lecturing).

Sounds similar to "team building" activities about privilege (or experience, or background) where participants progress (by stepping forward, or in some cases stepping back) based upon their responses to certain questions.

That's a nice control, and a unique way to use a game as an experimental intervention.

Great rationale presented here - connecting nicely to your affinity space study, your interests in adult learning and higher education, as well as your professional responsibilities. Well done.

2:45 - 4chan, it's like the bottoms of the internet. Completely anonymous, a lot of hated. I don't recommend anyone visiting the website unless you have a deep, unsatisfied curiosity; and then be prepared to be disapointed in the human race.

That's quite a lot of activity!

I'm curious, how do you understand a "noble fashion," and how did that quality of interaction contribute to you joining this affinity space?

so your learning "curve" (some might say trajectory) includes - navigating resources, setting up AW, and then orientation to AC. anything else?

Such as?

Yup, it does take a while, this all sounds familiar.

And why, in your opinion, are these cognitive training tools important and necessary?

and/or researchers who also design video games

A bit confused here... is this a reference to Bevelier and colleagues' 2012 article that we're reading in cycle 4?

this was their hypothesis, yes?

a nice connection to cycle 4 readings, and further evidence that Lumosity is pretty much bunk.

wouldn't this have been addressed somewhere in the research methods - how the researchers designed their study?

was that not specified?

Is this the research previously referenced?

do you have a reference for this research so that we might explore if we're curious?

Go it... i didn't know there was a Scooby-Doo expansion for Clue. Having watched the cartoon growing up, I likely would enjoy this "skin" of Clue.

So this was some type of expansion?

Nice summary. Our team - me, "The Jeffs," Michael, and another collaborator (Farrah) recently submitted a book chapter about our work a few summers ago with POOT in Oman. We designed and facilitated a special in-person three-day condensed trial for Omani high school students in Muscat. It was an amazing experience. The chapter discusses our "design principles for playful partnerships in game-based learning." It's under review right now, so we'll see what happens... but I'll happily share if interested.

Nice! And for readers less familiar with this reference, this is Bernard Suits' basic definition of game play - the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles.

There are all kinds of in-game dynamics - some might say shenanigans - that often emerge through the creativity, and real seriousness, of play.

Yes, and also in the response this character then receives from peers.

Yes, most games also feature a Hitler character, and it takes incredible skill, preparation and serious play for a middle or high school student to "realistically" and also respectfully role play as Hitler.

Yes, the primary means of online activity is asynchronous written communication. However, because entire classes of students are playing in a given game, those students have frequent synchronous and off-line, in-class, and both in- and out-of-character conversations about game play. This less formal aspect of learning (and play) is more difficult to capture because the online platform captures all written text.

This begins with preparatory activities that emphasize skills such as primary source research, synthesizing information, the presentation of information, and - of course - role play.

And contemporary people, as well as fictitious characters, too. For example, there is often a Harry Potter in recent games.

Yes, Jeff is a mentor, we met when I was in high school. And the other authors on this paper are my close friends and mentors, too. Fred was Jeff's dissertation advisor at UM, and mentored Jeff Stanzler, too. The "Jeffs" now direct ISC. Susanna is Jeff Kupperman's wife, and is a literacy professor at Toledo. And Michael Fahy is an anthropologist by training, who primarily helps to lead POOT and another ICS project - the Michigan Student Caucus. And Gary is a big game-based learning advocate, and leads a middle/high school out in California

Yes. Many serious games concern a provocative topic as the primary (and sole) qualification for "serious" - water security, or economic policy, or war. In the case of POOT, scenarios may be controversial - such as child labor or the wearing of religious garb in public schools - but it is the play that should be seriously enacted and considered. If play is serious, than a game becomes serious, irrespective of its given content.

I expect a few core concepts, such as lusory attitudes and situated learning, would relate well. And if you're really interested in simulations, I would recommend reading and reviewing such articles for your scholarly critiques as you dig into more simulation play.

Yes, but what are the practices that are common to simulations, irrespective of the age of the player? I think of role play, problem solving within the context of realistic scenarios, resource management, dealing with consequences...

This is really nice justification for simulation play, particularly as preparation for practice-focused professions (like educator, or designer, or researcher).

nice connection, and what aspects in particular?

maybe a little too real... or a little too much navel-gazing?

story of my life

Great point, and says a lot about who has access to the types of historical and cultural knowledge necessary to meaningfully play - and succeed - in this game.

Really? I didn't know that. Which ones?

Sounds like some type of choose-your-own-adventure as play mechanic...

There is hope!

Of course, what is treasure to someone may be garbage to another. In other words, where some gamers see meaningful play, others see sexism and misogyny.

As if politics have ever been removed from any form of cultural criticism - from books, to movies, to fine art. Ironically, some gamergate advocates believe this (new) type of media is to be protected from broader social, cultural, and political realities, yet at the same time these people may wish to see video games and gaming culture "taken seriously." Can't have one without the other.

Notice how easily it is replace just a few choice words here in relation to previous/current/ongong social struggles:

• Suffrage: "Some men with a deep sense of entitlement about the vote are terrified of change."
• Civil rights: "Some white people..."
• Gay marriage: "Some religious leaders..." While games and gaming culture may not be as consequential as other aspects of social and political equality, there remains a strong question about being "on the right side of history."

Coincidental that I selected this reading back in December for our use this semester, and then fractured my shoulder in February...? And that the first trained radiologist who examined one set of x-rays did not identify my fractured scapular spine, requiring a follow up with a trauma specialist, and a second radiologist and set of x-rays, and then finally a proper diagnosis. Goodness, I would have appreciated more accurate posterior distributions earlier in my ordeal!

Human Benchmark Test Pro-(action)games often score 100ms or less, my average score was 248ms.

So that's why a lot of baby foods have "Choline" listed somewhere prominent on the packaging!

BUT these types of statistics can be taught by games in general (usually card games). Look at those that play poker, Magic the Gathering or Hearthstone.

Perhaps they're just better at ignoring

What do people think about this observation, particularly as it relates to transfer?

So imagine you need laparoscopic surgery... and your primary care physician asks, "Would you rather have a surgeon from X prestigious medical school, or a surgeon who has played X video game for 10,000 hours?" How would you respond?

Note how carefully this correlation is presented - "typically." It's really important that the authors do not make over-the-top claims, and that the evidence they provide is nuanced and accurately framed.

Notice the really nice inclusion of a counter-example. This is an important practice for researchers.

But is your princess in another castle?

The classic challenge of transfer.

Some people are really curious about the idea of "transfer" - that a concept or skill learned in one context can be applied, with fidelity, in a second and novel context. This statement, however, suggests that such transfer is very difficult to enact and measure.

A beautiful, powerful question. Reminds me:

First - of the important distinction between "creating the conditions for" some type of practice (like scientific inquiry, or aesthetic representation, or debate) - and which then also welcomes unanticipated outcomes - in contrast to creating a design that only ensures "outcome X." And...

Second - The difference between games and puzzles. Puzzles are designed with pre-determined one right answers. Think crosswords or tabletop image-based puzzles. Games, on the other hand, create conditions for a certain type of play, and by definition have unanticipated outcomes. While there may be "win states," the question of who wins, and how, is not known when the experience begins. The differences between puzzles and games - as a broader metaphor - is relevant. Designing experiences to allow for unanticipated serendipity - engagement, process, outcome - is more similar to creating (and playing) a game than designing and completing a puzzle.

If grad students from ILT5320 swing by... please note the strong connection here to affinity spaces. Especially for some current Games and Learning students who were in Learning with Digital Stories last summer, you'll appreciate how DS106 is an affinity space - driven by interest and curiosity, with low-barriers to entry, and people who are hanging out and creating together not because of some reified aspect of identity, but rather because they share a common purpose.

Yes, it is controversial. Again, why we're reading the full piece by her - even though it's rather challenging, best to engage with the primary research itself.

Hence, why we're reading the piece noted here.

As a few folks mentioned, yes a need to conduct more research - perhaps with more people, careful monitoring of the control group that does not play anything, etc. Indeed, many new questions to explore!

Notice the specificity of this single research study - more similar to Bevelier and colleagues, and certainly a contrast to the general (and untrue) claims of a group like Lumosity.

This quick reference is a nice reminder of our Gee readings from Cycle 1.

How does this resonate with graduate students in CU Denver's #ILT5320?

As with my question above for CU Denver grad students in the ILT program, how does this resonate with your experience? The ILT program doesn't provide an explicit template for your basecamps (which act as an e-portfolio), yet this opportunity for experimentation may be met with frustration or confusion...

How does this resonate with CU Denver grad students and your relationship to both blogging and your basebamp?

I'm really curious what #ILT5320 learners think about this comparison, and how their ongoing experiences with our Games and Learning course this semester reflects this shift away from the LMS-based Canvas and into public PLNs...

Hey #ILT5320 learners, here's a nice connection back to our Cycle 2 readings!

At CU Denver, where I'm teaching, our Information and Learning Technologies program guides graduate students in creating online "basecamps" as a public portfolio of their work. These basecamps include a blog, hence the blogging that defines a course like INTE 5320 Games and Learning.

Are you advocating that educators non-invasively shock students' brains to help their perform better on certain tasks...?

in other words... shock people's brain and they'll more consistently perform at a higher level during increasingly difficult flight simulations?

what is the difference between 1-back, 2-back, and 3-back?

again, if i'm reading this correctly, the control group was made to feel "as if" they were getting shocked in their brain, but they weren't really getting shocked, yes?

in other words, does this mean shocking someone's brain?

awesome, why to make connections and engage with your own interests - that's exactly what we should be doing in our course!

And when you do, any ideas about how you might document your students' learning?

Sounds like you need to connect with someone who can effectively broker your access to that space and those resources.

Any initial thoughts about what this might look like?

For those readers less familiar with breakout rooms, what's a basic definition?

As with my annotation on your equity and coding post, I think you mean leaning theory... ? And even if that's the case, how are you distinguishing a useful theoretical perspective on learning (such as entering a Discourse as a "gamer") from your experience playing games as a gamer?

Again, a really smart move, and I'm glad Brad was able to help you align multiple efforts together.

I'm really glad you recognized this early and changed course.

Nice!

I've found these moments to be particularly wonderful, as we're interested in learning and social comprehension, perhaps more so than outright competition.

Yes, nice analysis in reference to Games' article and the Discourse of be(com)ing a Game Maker.

Yes, the "Discourse" of game maker, which includes certain ways of speaking, interacting, posing and solving problems. A "Discourse" is a "way of being" that relies upon the "insider" use of certain symbols - and whether those symbols are material (like what you wear), or social (what you say and do), and even conceptual (how you think about the world).

Yes, this is important, it speaks to the "situated" nature of learning in games - an argument and aspect of learning theory that Gee introduced in our Cycle 1 readings

Indeed, many academics do. The difference between discourse and "Discourse" (as proposed famously by Gee) is challenging to grok and then apply.

That's a great sample and a significant data set. I wonder - did they partner with a local university to conduct that research, or was it conducted entirely "in-house"?

I would likely agree!

Sound familiar?! Wonderful connection to our Cycle 3 readings.

This is really interesting. Note how the design ties together learning across multiple settings, resources, and people.

Actually... to be very specific, we are examining various perspectives on learning theory to understand games and game play. Game theory is actually an approach to mathematical modeling that is often used in (applied) economics. The classic "prisoner's dilemma" problem is an example of game theory, but not a study of the social and cultural practices of learning that might help us educators to understand - and design - games for learning. Hope that's a helpful clarification.

If you're interested in a more "critical" appreciation of "seriousness" in games and game play, I'll share with you an article written by my mentor-turned-colleague Jeff Kupperman... let me know.

Indeed. And... how do Montgomery's critiques relate to these insights?

There is a lot of game-based learning research that connects game play activities to the professional practices of various roles, whether engineers or doctors. We'll look at an example authored by my former graduate advisor later this term.

I like GlassLab a lot, they've designed some stellar games over the years, and I have a few former colleagues/grad student comrades from UW who work for them.

I'm curious to know more about this, specifically what constitutes a "progression" and how it is being measured to show learning (hence, research-based).

You're setting up an interesting contrast here. The skeptic in me looks at a Pearson-sponsored blog in comparison to an EdSurge report as an "insider" (DiCerbo) versus a more objective "outsider" (Montgomery). Should we raise questions about the evidence and subjectivity of DiCerbo's analysis? Alternatively, should we question Montgomery's agenda?

Can you tell us more about this connection? Sounds fascinating...

Yes, I agree - there is a very distinctive visual language or aesthetic to the game.

Hmmmm... i'm not convinced. Later this term we'll take a close look at a few ARGs, and I think that you'll find some distinctive characteristics between that approach to game design and play (which often relies upon everyday tools, settings, and social interactions), and the mechanics of a card game like Exploding Kittens.

It is! We watched this as a group before playing during the shared play session on campus.

Isn't this an important lesson to learn?!

I'm pleased to learn that you purchased the card game to play with others, that's grand!

That's great, and as you do, please keep us updated!

Do you have any ideas or suggestions about how this might be done?

This is wonderful to learn. I think you'll find the Cycle 4 readings on neuroscience really fascinating.

Awesome - you win.

What Jim Gee and other game-based learning researchers refer to as "just-in-time" learning.

which is a really useful, "low-barrier" way to begin using a new learning platform, like Twitter.

Yup, and just wait... we're going to dive deep into debates about "effectiveness" and "measures" of game-based learning. It's often contested and open to debate.

Thanks for your honest assessment, this is really important for me to know. And keep the updates coming, especially if/when that value begins to emerge.

By design. And please don't assume that I "agree" with every argument in every reading. Rather, I know that certain authors or texts are provocative, and I believe it's important to engage with challenges ideas. I'm glad you haven't found that off-putting!

That's a great sample and a significant data set. I wonder - did they partner with a local university to conduct that research, or was it conducted entirely "in-house"?

I would likely agree!

Sound familiar?! Wonderful connection to our Cycle 3 readings.

This is really interesting. Note how the design ties together learning across multiple settings, resources, and people.

Actually... to be very specific, we are examining various perspectives on learning theory to understand games and game play. Game theory is actually an approach to mathematical modeling that is often used in (applied) economics. The classic "prisoner's dilemma" problem is an example of game theory, but not a study of the social and cultural practices of learning that might help us educators to understand - and design - games for learning. Hope that's a helpful clarification.

If you're interested in a more "critical" appreciation of "seriousness" in games and game play, I'll share with you an article written by my mentor-turned-colleague Jeff Kupperman... let me know.

Indeed. And... how do Montgomery's critiques relate to these insights?

There is a lot of game-based learning research that connects game play activities to the professional practices of various roles, whether engineers or doctors. We'll look at an example authored by my former graduate advisor later this term.

I'm curious to know more about this, specifically what constitutes a "progression" and how it is being measured to show learning (hence, research-based).

You're setting up an interesting contrast here. The skeptic in me looks at a Pearson-sponsored blog in comparison to an EdSurge report as an "insider" (DiCerbo) versus a more objective "outsider" (Montgomery). Should we raise questions about the evidence and subjectivity of DiCerbo's analysis? Alternatively, should we question Montgomery's agenda?

I like GlassLab a lot, they've designed some stellar games over the years, and I have a few former colleagues/grad student comrades from UW who work for them.

At the end of this semester, if you can speak with authority about the motivation of others to play games, to join a game night, and to actively participate in a gaming community regularly, then you'll have matched expectations for this project and course.

I appreciate learning this - again, thanks for making this explicit to us as readers, for bringing us "in" a bit more to your experiences.

I think this is a healthy tension, and I'm glad you've noted it here - thanks for sharing with everyone.

Interesting... using academic study to distance oneself from the conflicts of game play...

Huh... maybe honestly aint the best policy?