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.

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!

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!

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...

Again, I appreciate Kohn's critique... and yet why not also point us towards the many, many examples of educators who are using educational technologies to transform their teaching and their students' learning? A more balanced argument would leave me not only feeling more hopeful, but also equipped to learn from those educators who are designing and implementing new pedagogies and technologies for more equitable learning.

And for ongoing, site-specific professional learning.

I would argue this critique is not so black and white. There's a very strong push within the 2016 NETP (as it is often referred) for educational equity. In contrast to previous plans, the 2016 NETP strongly advocating equity - in terms of access, participation, and outcomes - through various uses of educational technology. While I generally agree with his critique, there's more nuance here than Kohn is suggesting.

Are MUSEDigPed students familiar with Turkle's books, such as Alone Together and her recent Reclaiming Conversation?

MUSEDigPed students should read Cuban's Teachers and Machines.

All very true. And again, this can happen within the context of digital media and learning efforts. Exhibit A is the connected learning movement.

I would argue there are some important advances in competency-based efforts that are not designed for the sake of technology-as-panacea, or for the blanket collection of big data within an accountability context, but rather because of commitments to educational equity - and in partnership with students, parents, and community stakeholders. See, for example, this district-designed initiative to promote digital badging.

Or to challenge the hierarchy of teacher-student relations... or to challenge school as an institution to may in fact perpetuate inequality... or to challenge other systemic injustice that afflict many students.

And yes, we should object - particularly when commercial interests are at stake. Again, read this.

Well yes... and no. Without getting too abstract, language and symbol systems are technologies. Our classrooms and social norms are technologies (of control, or affording knowledge construction). And so too might we conceptualize cultural practices (whether associated with academic disciplines or personal heritage) as technologies that can seed interaction and learning.

We can - and should - start a list here. Because of my background and research with games, I'll begin by mentioning Minecraft and Connected Camps.

And there is a tremendous history documenting just such technologies... from Papert's seminal research with children and their design with Mindstorms), to more recent descriptions of teaching in the connected learning classroom.

In other words - "Is it Time to Give Up on Computers in Schools?"

and adaptive, and rigorous, and data-driven, and jargon jargon jargon.... reform reform reform... techno-determinism for the win!

And initiatives, such as the recent push for "computer science for all."

O.5?

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!

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.

I know some people - academics, designers, those who favor control and authority - would really struggle with the implications for this not knowing of why and how. For some, your question about designing open experiences with unanticipated serendipity may be terrifying - best left unasked. I'm curious how you developed a disposition towards designing so that the porch light is on, the door is open, and that when people come and go it's not necessarily important to ask why or how, but rather to just starting doing...

Thanks for the shoutout... not sure how our current "learning with digital stories" course is tapping into #ds106 beyond the boundaries of that course. I'm excited to start reengaging with another iteration this coming summer.

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.

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...

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

I'd like to know how this distributed, ecological, and trans-temporal orientation became so second-nature! It's so wonderful and refreshing! I find this orientation contrary to the constraints and culture of most schooling, and antithetical to the discrete and measurable indicators of efficiency that too seldom pass for quality learning. In other words, how does your sense of connected become a norm, rather than a fear and an impossible challenge?

The deft organization of your various selves, resources, and expressions is wonderful - well-crafted to meet various and divergent needs.

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...

Digital?

What's going on with IJLM?!

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

This is a wonderful representation, something I might refer to as mapping a learning ecology.

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...

Such incredible respect for Dixie and Rafi!

And life-wide? And life-deep? As a learning scientist, this report from Banks and colleagues is a seminal frame for my teaching and research.

There it is!

I appreciate your phrasing, because I feel as the pedagogical strategies and nuance of connected learning can be lost amidst the hype of design principles and exemplary cases. In this respect, I'm a huge fan of Antero Garcia's edited volume Teaching in the Connected Learning Classroom.

I'm reminded of Brigid Barron's emphasis on learning ecologies - the ability of networks (comprised of resources, relations, and people) to propel learners' development across settings.

And workers! Entrepreneurs! Lest we not forget how market-driven forces inform this conversation... ugh.

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

Are you referring here to the DML/MacArthur-funded framing of connected learning?

Sounds like decisions I make everyday! I'm fascinated by the fear that - due to the supposed permanence of online activity - we should sanitize how aspects of learning (and living) are translated from the so-called "real world" to online social networks.

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.

Sounds similar to the practice of annotation - jotting down thoughts, ideas, and reactions.

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

that's a rather notable difference

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?

In being so analytical about possible moves and outcomes that you disconnect from the flow of game play?

I love this cheat, this is just awesome.

Sounds like the worst of schooling!

I presume this applies to both games and other learning experiences, too.

I'm curious about how you would evaluate this observation after playing this game three or four times.

Indeed, sounds very similar to the video game Civilization series.

sounds like graduate school!

Indeed. Powerful post Susan, thanks for sharing.

This is a very nice critique!

Right... didn't we all learn this in high school?! .... I'm kind of not joking...

Although I know of a few Twine games that are very provocative... I recall one included in a colleague's research project that relieved the experiences of a veteran from the latest Iraq war. It was rather brutal - in both its honesty and explicit violence... not sure it's public, but it made for a rather compelling research case.

Nice, right?!

This is helpful to learn... and so Harvey is applying Halberstam's definition to game design?

So help me and other readers out here. "Queering" is being used as an adverb, as a means of describing an action that changes how to both practice and conceptualize game design?

Yes, is someone creating a game as an act of resistance, as an aesthetic form of resistance against social norms... or to make some money... or maybe both?

Wow, this sounds like a very compelling analysis. I'll likely read her article!

There is such awesome game design happening in Twine! Even Stephen Colbert created a game in Twine.

Was this a special issue of the journal?

Interesting... I'm often pretty averse to games that are designed specifically to teach a given topic or concept.

As you've seen through my own Twitter interactions, I do this regularly with various academic communities. It keeps me grounded and connected to many people who have wonderful knowledge and resources, and are more often than not willing to share.

That's wonderful to learn! I know it was a challenge to connect the folks in Denver with people online in other locations, though I'm glad you found it enjoyable!

It is, and I both encourage and support what I call your healthy skepticism. As you no doubt noted in Cycle 3, I too bring a very skeptical orientation to flash-in-the-pan trends like gamification. And having some caution about game-based learning - more generally - is very welcome.

Absolutely. And so, too, a safety and a sense of belonging.

Such as...? And, if such practices persist in our course, will you please let me know?

I see... so your orientation toward decreasing learning anxiety is a direct reflection of your prior experiences in a course. Did this teacher mention other benefits to game-based learning?

This seems like a really specific rationale for investigating the relationship between games and learning. Aside from decreasing anxiety, does your interest in games and learning concern other dynamics or possibilities?

Really? That is fascinating for me to read. Perhaps that's because I've always enjoyed games specifically, and playfulness more generally. Can you recall a time when you did desire to play games? And if so, what changed?

I'll second that!

This is interesting... if someone can "be themselves" in a work setting, does that mean that the social norms of the work environment are malleable, and that they conform to the needs of the individual, meeting various people's needs?

And probably not interrupting one another during meetings! I'm amazed at how frequently colleagues interrupt people, especially their bosses! It drives me crazy, and - I would presume - impacts the health of a team (such as a group of faculty).

These are also core principles that guide various approaches to design work (and research) in education.

Isn't it interesting how our work lives and our social lives are so intertwined? For an individually-oriented society like that found in America, we sure to make work our life...

Of course, what if we lived in a collective - rather than individually-oriented - society, such as that found in Japan?

Go for it! As I mentioned via Twitter (yes?), this whole special issue from the NYTimes on team was really well written and researched. Much more academic than a typical piece of everyday news. And, most importantly, your learning in our course should interest-driven.

I like the image of a reading, a text, refusing to turn you - the reader - loose. Nice hook!

Wonderful Lisa, I appreciate that you've shared this with us!

Awesome, I'm looking forward to reading your critique.

Yeah, that sounds like an approach I would support...

Yes, absolutely. I think the special OTH issue shared above will have many promising examples.

A few folks are asking a similar question. Dig in here. And let me know what articles you'd like - I have access to them all.

Despite the frustration, this is a really nice range of experiences and I'm glad you've already had those various playful learning experiences in such a short period of time.

Yeah, stick with it! Shouldn't a director of a daycare be all about play?!?!

You certainly contributed to my meaningful engagement in the chat!

Yeah, me too! And, honestly, I still am with many - they're too fast, too superficial, or just kind of boring. When I find a chat I really like, I dig in. Otherwise, I tend to walk away and not return. Kind of like an affinity space...

Great to learn, I appreciate you sharing this!

This is nice to learn. I wonder if you'll find a video game - perhaps through our shared play - that will spark such a moment for you. Maybe... or maybe not.

So what is a learning tool? That's a very serious question, and one that drives to the heart of this course.

Ugh

Which raises other questions about a "hidden curriculum" taught to young girls/players. Should a parent purchase this game for their child, knowing a daughter might receive this type of messaging?