Too often factors like race, gender, social class, or disability play a prominent role in school without the student‘s ability to choose how to define and use his or her own identity

A common endeavor for which at least many people in the space have a passion—not race, class, gender, or disability—is primary

They function in certain ways that we believe are good for learning and human growth. Since not all affinity spaces function this way, we will call these ―nurturing affinity spaces.‖

Affinity spaces are a ―fuzzy concept‖ in the logical sense that they are defined by fuzzy boundaries

Affinity spaces do not have to be virtual

―who belongs‖ is simply to say that whoever enters the space (the fan site) is in the group and belongs.

―group‖ is defined by a space in which people associate, rather than some readily identifiable criteria like registering with a political party or completing professional training.

Imagine the transformation in schools if learning in school became about how to make good choices in science, mathematics, art, and civic participation

‖ (e.g., newcomers may be flamed when they unknowingly break a norm or fail to already know what they ―should‖ know).

If human learning and growth flourish in a nurturingaffinity space, then it is of some concern that school has so few features of such a space

Affinity spaces and other sorts of communities can give people a sense of belonging, but they can also give people a sense of ―us‖ (the insiders) against ―them‖ (the outsiders).

What does ―belonging‖ really mean?

Of course, we will argue that a principle of good meta-game design is involving players as designers. That is, most positive social engagement

Designing, thinking like a designer, reflecting on the interaction between design and human interaction (as in a game), and thinking of complex relations in systems (as in the rule set of a game and the way it interacts with players and they interact with it) are all 21stcentury skills (ZIMMERMAN, 2007)

fan sites to discuss, critique, analyze, and mod the game

Those of us who have made the claim that games are good for learning have meant, of course, that well-designed games are good for learning, not poorly designed ones.

games that stress the involvement of players as designers in the first sense, by making game design a core game mechanic, facilitating modding, and encouraging robust design communities to develop around the game are, we believe, particularly good for fostering skills with technology,

Using the term ―group‖ over-stresses the people at the expense of the structure of the space, and the way the space and people interact.

We will call such games big ―G‖ Games with a plus: ―Games+‖. We can claim that ―Games+ are particularly good for learning.‖

―metagame‖ has been increasinglyused to describe ―‘the game beyond the game,‘ or the aspects of game play that derive not from the rules of the game, but from interplay with the surrounding context‖

that sets up game play; i.e., what comes ―in the box‖ or increasingly, is downloaded from the game distributor‘s website. We will call the social practices that happen inside and/or outside the game, the ―meta-game.‖ We willcall the combination of the two—game and meta-game—the big ―G‖ ―Game,‖ with a capital ―G‖ (see GEE, 1990, for a similar distinction between discourse and Discourse).

Good video games are complex, challenging, and long; they can take 50 or more hours to finish. If a game cannot be learned well, then it will fail to sell well, and the company that makes it is in danger of going broke.