This course is meant to provide an opportunity to examine the current and past literature on play, games and representation, game design approaches, and digital game-based learning. It is organized into a discrete set of activities, each of which has its own associated readings and assignments. Your challenge is to create your own way through the activities, with some crucial individual and whole group check-in points along the way.
Note: you can begin this course from any of the activities, they are meant to be complementary and assignments are designed for discrete consideration of readings/issues/problematics, however IP1 is due on Jan. 22, 2023, just to get you started.
**Just a note: All the links below should take you to the library website/correct pages, and it is duplicated in the library section of Canvas, if a link doesn’t work, make sure to message us in slack!**
All individual assignments are to be posted to your own individual website. You can use whatever hosting service/WYSIWYG editor you choose. Once you have completed the assignment/s, send to the instructors via slack. To sign up, click here.
You will choose to complete 5 Individual Intellectual Productions (collectively worth 25% of your final grade) each related to one of the following selection of eight topics:
- Intellectual Production #1: Digital Games & Learning (REQUIRED)
- Intellectual Production #2: Digital Games & Learning Research Reviews
- Intellectual Production #3: Learning through Game Design
- Intellectual Production #4: Theoretical Foundations of Play
- Intellectual Production #5: Hegemonic Play: Gatekeeping Game Cultures
- Intellectual Production #6: Representations in Games: Gender, Race & Sexuality
- Intellectual Production #7: Playing Online: Let’s Twitch
- Intellectual Production #8: Game Design 101 (REQUIRED)
Intellectual Production #1: Digital Games and Learning Perspectives (REQUIRED, DUE: Jan. 22)
Required Readings:
- Gee, J. P. (2008). Cats and portals: Video games, learning, and play. American Journal of Play, 1(2), 229.
- Gee, E., & Gee, J. P. (2017). Games as distributed teaching and learning systems. Teachers College Record, 119(11).
Task: To help you engage with these two papers on games and learning, write a short, (6-sentence) summary of each, using the “3-2-1” method described HERE, then write a 2-sentence “bridge” that identifies common ground or linkages, disagreements or differences, between these two sets of ideas.
Intellectual Production #2: Digital Games & Learning: Reviews of Research
Required Reading (choose 2 OR pick 2 of your own, subject to approval, but that is quick – just message us Slack). You should read in your interest area here if you can, i.e. are you a math teacher? read the meta-reviews on math and games, or are you an ELL teacher? read the meta-reviews in that area, or are you a generalist? There’s also lots there you can read. Pick and choose what is closest to your area/s of interest or intrigue — no need to stick to the ones below!
Readings:
- Alabdulakareem, E., & Jamjoom, M. (2020). Computer-assisted learning for improving ADHD individuals’ executive functions through gamified interventions: A review. Entertainment Computing, 33, 100341. doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100341
- Checa, D., & Bustillo, A. (2020). A review of immersive virtual reality serious games to enhance learning and training. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 79(9-10), 5501-5527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-08348-9
- Lin, Jen-Jiu & Lin, Huifen (2019). Mobile-assisted ESL/EFL vocabulary learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32, 8, 878-919. DOI: https://10.1080/09588221.2018.1541359
- STANČIN, K., HOIĆ-BOŽIĆ, N., & SKOČIĆ MIHIĆ, S. (2020). Using digital game-based learning for students with intellectual disabilities – A systematic literature review. Informatics in Education, 19(2), 323-341. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2020.15
- Powers, F. E., & Moore, R. L. (2021). When failure is an option: A scoping review of failure states in game-based learning. Techtrends, 65(4), 615-625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00606-8
- Tokac, Umit, Novak, Elena, & Thompson, Christopher, G. (2019). Effects of game-based learning on students’ mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of computer assisted learning, 35, 407-425. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12347
- Su, F., Zou, D., Xie, H., & Wang, F. L. (2021). A comparative review of mobile and non-mobile games for language learning. SAGE Open, 11(4), 215824402110672. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211067247
- Wang, A. I., & Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using kahoot! for learning – A literature review. Computers and Education, 149, 103818. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818
- Martin, Wendy, Silander, Megan, & Rutter, Sarah. (2019). Digital games as sources for science analogies: Learning about energy through play. Computers & education, 130, 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.002
- Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational Research Review, 30, 100326. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326
- Calvo-Morata, A., Alonso-Fernández, C., Freire, M., Martínez-Ortiz, I., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2020). Serious games to prevent and detect bullying and cyberbullying: A systematic serious games and literature review. Computers and Education, 157, 103958. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103958
Intellectual Production #2:
Annotated Bibliography – from the 2 readings you chose, create 2 annotations – no more than 300 words each. Annotations are meant to be summaries of key findings + research methods/approach + your critical evaluation. This activity builds upon activity 1, asking you to fine tune your summarizing capabilities.
Intellectual Production #3: Learning through Game Design
Choose 2 readings:
- Burke, Q. & Kafai, Y. (2014). Decade of game making for learning: From tools to communities. M. Angelides & H. Agius (Eds.) Handbook of Digital Games (pp. 689-709). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Denner, J., Campe, S., & Werner, L. (2019). Does computer game design and programming benefit children? A meta-synthesis of research. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 19(3), 1-35. doi:10.1145/3277565
- Jenson, J. & Droumeva, M. (2017). Revisiting the media generation: Youth media use and computational literacy instruction. E-learning and digital media, 14, 4, 212-225.
Intellectual Production #3:
Time to twine! Your job is to create a meaningful way of representing TWO of the readings through a twine creation of your own. It MUST be multimodal (image/text/sound). Twines can be developed using a browser, or by downloading the software for windows or macOS. There are LOTS of fora to get help, so make sure to check those out. https://twinery.org/
Want to see how this can be done? Here’s a great example, created in another course! https://janekuzn.github.io/mulinsen/Mulinsen.html
And for those of you who like a bit of explication – here’s a bit of that in worksheet format. https://blogs.ubc.ca/565d/files/2019/12/TwineResourcesWorksheet.pdf
Intellectual Production #4: What is a Game?
Readings:
- Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S., Smith, J. H., & Tosca, S. P. (2020;2019;). Understanding video games: The essential introduction (4th ed.). Milton: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429431791 – Read chapter entitled: “What is a Game?”
Intellectual Production #4:
The authors of this chapter have laid out a variety of theories about what games and play entail. Your job is to use whatever mind mapping tool you choose and to, in your OWN WORDS, ‘map out’ the theories of game/play that are discussed (e.g. you can use mind mapping software to do this). This should be a very detailed and wholistic mapping exercise. No quoting unless absolutely necessary – try to rework these ideas to put them in your own words (except of course the “high level” naming of the theories, those you CAN quote). Once you have created your “map”, the next step is to accompany that with a short 2-3 minute video that walks us through – highlighting your choices and any innovative ‘turns’.
Intellectual Production #5: Hegemonic Play: Gatekeeping Game Culture
Readings:
- Choi, Y., Slaker, J. S., & Ahmad, N. (2020). Deep strike: Playing gender in the world of overwatch and the case of geguri. Feminist Media Studies, 20(8), 1128-1143. doi:10.1080/14680777.2019.1643388
- Witkowski, E. (2018). Doing/Undoing gender with the girl gamer in high-performance play. (pp. 185-203). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90539-6_11
- https://kotaku.com/ubisoft-employees-have-grave-concerns-over-toronto-stud-1844277486
Intellectual Production #5:
Games are territorial activities, welcoming for some but inaccessible to others, and especially women, the boundaries of video game making and play are policed in myriad, more and less obvious, ways. Based on the readings, and your own investigative powers where you find your own two other supplementary sources (video/blog/game, etc.), create a response to the readings that demonstrates what you’ve learned about the harassment women face who play and make games, and hegemony of game culture specifically, including some of the ways its boundaries are created, sustained and (possibly) changed. You can make a podcast, create a poster or powerpoint, make/mod a game, construct a poem, write a short story—however you can show us what you learned about access and equity in game culture/s. Multi-sensoriality is strongly encouraged for this assignment.
Intellectual Production #6: Race, Sexuality, and Videogames
Readings/Media:
- Leonard, D. J., & Gray, K. L. (2018). Woke gaming: Digital challenges to oppression and social injustice. University of Washington Press. (Read: INTRODUCTION)
- Short but important piece on indigenous content/games by indigenous graduate student Kateryna Barnes on the game Kisima Innitchuna (Never Alone): http://www.firstpersonscholar.com/agniq-suannaktuq-and-kisima-innitchuna-never-alone/
- https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/21/confronting-racial-bias-in-video-games/
- Ruberg, Bo. Straightwashing Undertale: Video games and the limits of LGBTQ representation. Available at:https://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/1516/1866
- Special Issue, Queerness in Videogames, Introduction – Bo Ruberg & Amanda Phillips – at: http://gamestudies.org/1803/articles/phillips_ruberg
- Intersectionality Went Viral: Toxic Platforms, Distinctive Black Cyberfeminism and Fighting Misogynoir – An Interview with Kishonna Gray
- B, T., & YANG, E. (2020). Making games about queer women of color by queer women of color. (pp. 153) Duke University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv1134cq5.21
Intellectual Production #6:
Using 2 of the sources above and adding in others that you find, create a mashup of key concepts, challenges, ideas, and/or theories related to race and sexuality in video games (and gender/class/ability if you want to get all intersectional!). Your job is to create a cohesive overview of the topic. Imagine you are presenting your mashup to work colleagues to introduce them to representational problematics in video games as well as game design and the industry more generally. Again, the choice of medium is up to you, but it must be multimodal.
Intellectual Production #7: Playing Online: Twitch Broadcasting
Readings:
- Wulf, T., Schneider, F. M., & Beckert, S. (2018;2020). Watching players: An exploration of media enjoyment on twitch. Games and Culture, 15(3), 155541201878816-346. doi:10.1177/1555412018788161
- Taylor, T. L. (2018). Twitch and the work of play. American Journal of Play, 11(1), 65-84.
- This is just FYI for those who want to ‘go deep’. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586975/full
Intellectual Production #7:
You’ve read the two articles, which approach streaming from an audience and a producer point of view. Your task — watch 3 different TWITCH gameplay streams, then working back to the readings, what did you observe that specifically is referenced in the texts, and what is left out? Make sure you focus on both production and spectatorship. This can be multimodal (e.g. take screen shots to support your point/s). No more than 1000 words.
Intellectual Production #8: Game Design 101 (REQUIRED – Due: Feb. 5)
Readings:
- Fullerton, T. (2014). Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games, NY: Taylor & Francis (CRS Press)/ Chapters 1, 2, 3.
Intellectual Production #8:
Working alone–and for some of you this is re-reading (no harm in that!), read chapters 1-3 and do at least 5 of the exercises Fullerton suggests . For those of you who this is not a new reading reflect on your past work, and choose different exercises – you can even branch out if you want into another chapter, just make sure we can follow along. The exercises are mostly quick, some go deeper, but you can pick and choose. The idea is to work with the ideas she is presenting ways to think deeply and productively about your own game design.