Intellectual Production #2: Digital Games & Learning: Reviews of Research- Annotated Bibliography
Introduction
I chose these two readings knowing I would be reading them a bit differently than I might have earlier in my career. After more than 20 years at Statistics Canada, and in my current role managing the Data Literacy Training Initiative, I tend to instinctively look past the headline findings and into how the evidence is constructed. I find myself asking: How strong is the design? What assumptions are being made? How much confidence should we actually place in these conclusions? Engaging with these articles gave me the opportunity to lean into that instinct. Rather than simply accepting whether game-based learning or gamification “works,” I was most interested in how the authors handled variability, statistical interpretation, and methodological limitations. That lens shaped both how I summarized the studies and how I evaluated them.
Tokac, U., Novak, E., & Thompson, C. G. (2019). Effects of game-based learning on students’ mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12347
Tokac, Novak, and Thompson investigate whether game-based learning significantly improves PreK–12 students’ mathematics achievement compared to traditional instruction. Their central claim is that mathematics video games produce a small but statistically significant positive effect on achievement, though outcomes vary depending on contextual and methodological factors. The article is structured conventionally for a meta-analysis: a theoretical rationale for game-based learning in mathematics education, detailed inclusion criteria and coding procedures, statistical synthesis of effect sizes, and moderator analyses. The authors conclude that while game-based learning can support mathematics achievement, its impact is not uniform and depends on grade level, study design, and assessment type.
Research methods/approach:
This study is a quantitative meta-analysis of 24 empirical studies. Using a random-effects model, the authors calculate overall effect sizes and conduct moderator analyses to examine variability across instructional conditions and research designs.
Critical evaluation:
A significant strength of this article is its careful treatment of heterogeneity. Rather than presenting game-based learning as inherently effective, the authors acknowledge variability and methodological limitations across primary studies. The modest overall effect size (small practical significance) tempers overly enthusiastic claims about mathematics games. However, the reliance on published studies may introduce publication bias, and the limited number of high-quality randomized designs constrains causal interpretation. Overall, this article contributes an evidence-based foundation for discussions of mathematics game integration, emphasizing that instructional design and alignment with curricular goals are more influential than novelty alone.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326
Zainuddin et al. conduct a systematic review to examine the empirical impact of gamification on learning outcomes and instructional practices. Their guiding question asks how gamification affects student engagement, achievement, and instructional design, and what methodological patterns characterize the field. The article is organized by mapping publication trends, synthesizing reported outcomes, and identifying theoretical and methodological gaps. The authors find that gamification frequently improves engagement and motivation and sometimes enhances academic performance. However, they conclude that results are inconsistent and often short-term, with limited theoretical grounding across studies.
Research methods/approach:
This study is a qualitative systematic literature review of 46 empirical studies published between 2016 and 2019. The authors employ thematic content analysis to categorize outcomes, research designs, participant groups, and gamification elements (e.g., points, badges, leaderboards).
Critical evaluation:
A key strength of this review is its critical stance toward the field’s methodological weaknesses. The authors move beyond simply reporting positive outcomes and instead question the theoretical assumptions underpinning gamification research. Their identification of superficial implementation (e.g., reward systems without pedagogical integration) provides useful direction for future research. A limitation is the reliance on a single database and a restricted timeframe, which may narrow the scope of analysis. Nevertheless, the article offers a nuanced synthesis that challenges simplistic claims about gamification and calls for stronger theoretical and methodological rigour.
Final Assignment Part 2: Game Design Proposal
Final Assignment Part 1: Fullerton’s Chapter 6 Exercise
ETEC 544_FA_PT1
Intellectual Production # 2, IP #8
The following exercises explore games and play from a personal, experiential perspective. Rather than focusing only on formal definitions or abstract theory, these responses draw on my own experiences as a player to reflect on what makes games engaging, frustrating, challenging, or meaningful. Across the exercises, I consider how rules, structure, uncertainty, and player tendencies shape both gameplay and player experience, using a mix of familiar games and everyday activities to ground the discussion.
References:
Fullerton, T. (2014). Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games, NY: Taylor & Francis (CRS Press)/ Chapters 1, 2, 3.
Exercise 1.2: D.O.A. (Dead on Arrival)
A game I found dead on arrival was PIPS, a game in The New York Times games collection. I was genuinely excited when I saw that a new game had been added, since I regularly enjoy the Mini Crossword, Connections, and Wordle. Unfortunately, PIPS quickly became frustrating rather than engaging.
The core issue for me was that the game assumes prior knowledge of how to play dominoes. While there is a brief tutorial, it mainly explains how to move the tiles around rather than how dominoes actually work as a game. I have never played dominoes myself, though I am familiar with them culturally. I’ve seen them used in patterns or knocked over, but I don’t know the rules, such as how tiles are matched or why certain moves are strategic.
Because of that, the game felt inaccessible almost immediately. Within a few minutes, I found myself needing to leave the game entirely to look up how dominoes are played, which broke the experience. I didn’t feel motivated to invest that extra effort just to understand the basics before I could even begin enjoying the game.
What the designers missed, in my opinion, is the opportunity for a more foundational introduction. Even a short explanation of how dominoes work, or why people enjoy playing them, would have helped bridge that gap. Interestingly, The New York Times does an excellent job onboarding players for Wordle, which is a newly invented game people didn’t already know how to play, so it was necessary for the NYT games people to clearly teach the rules of play. PIPS did not receive the same level of onboarding support.
I recognize that this reaction is partly shaped by my own experience. The crossword also assumes prior knowledge, but because I already know how crosswords work, that assumption doesn’t bother me. Still, if the goal is to invite new players in, PIPS could be improved by offering a clearer and more welcoming introduction to dominoes themselves.
Exercise 1.3: Your Life as a Game
Several areas of my life could be framed as games if I think about them in terms of goals, constraints, and feedback. I consider my Apply watch to have gamified certain physical aspects of my life my setting goals and earning badges for completing daily, weekly and even monthly they tasks. When I explain how I think other areas of my life came be gamified, it is in this aspect to which I am referring.
First area would be managing my finances. This could be structured as a long-term resource-management game where the objective is to hit certain savings and investment goals while trying new ways to find efficiencies on other areas of spending that still bring joy and reduce stress. Progress would be measured through progressive accumulation in different “buckets” and once a certain goal is met, I could be rewarded.
Another area is time management. Balancing work, school, social time, cooking, exercise, and alone time already feels like a scheduling puzzle. As a game, it could involve allocating limited time “resources” each day while trying to maintain balance rather than maximizing productivity in any single area.
My love of cooking could also be gamified. This might involve experimenting with new recipes, building skill over time, or setting personal challenges like cooking with unfamiliar ingredients. Feedback would come from taste, enjoyment, and the satisfaction of learning something new. This is an exercise in creativity, nutrition and enjoyment by my family. Scores could be given for presentation, nutrition value, cost and taste.
Similarly, my interest in physical exercise could be framed as a progression-based game focused on consistency and variety rather than performance. The challenge would be showing up regularly and trying different types of movement rather than pushing toward competitive benchmarks. I would earn badges for each new exercise I tried.
Finally, I could imagine a game built around organizing and sharing content I find online. The objective would be to collect, categorize, and share things I find interesting or funny in a way that feels intentional rather than overwhelming, turning passive scrolling into something more purposeful that I can either archive for myself or share with friends.
Exercise 1.5: Your Childhood
Below are ten games I played as a child and what made each compelling to me.
- The Game of Life
I loved the physical car pieces and peg figures that represented life milestones. The spinner felt exciting and different from dice. - Operation
The physical challenge was everything. Successfully removing a piece without setting off the buzzer was deeply satisfying, and the risk made it thrilling. - Tag
It was simple, flexible, and could be played almost anywhere. - Hide and Seek
Similar to tag but quieter and unlike tag was better when played at night or indoors. - Soccer Baseball
It felt more forgiving than traditional baseball, which made it less embarrassing (less strike-outs) and more fun. - Softball
Playing on an all-girls team made the experience feel balanced and supportive, which increased my enjoyment. - Candy Land
It was easy to understand and visually playful, making it perfect for playing with younger cousins. - Monopoly
While not always enjoyable, it was familiar and universal, something everyone knew how to play across generations. - Super Mario Bros.
This game stands out because it became a shared activity with my dad, creating some of my strongest childhood memories. - Rummy 500
This was one of the only games I played with my mom, making it feel especially meaningful.
Exercise 2.1: Think of a Game
Game One: Chicago
Chicago is a competitive card game played with a standard 52-card deck. The game is played over multiple rounds, and at the start of each round, each player is dealt five cards. Those cards form the basis for the entire round, although players may have opportunities to trade cards.
Each round consists of five tricks. One player begins a trick by playing a card, which sets the suit. Other players must follow suit if possible. The highest card of the led suit wins the trick and leads the next one.
What makes Chicago distinctive is that each round has a different scoring objective. Some rounds reward the best poker hand, while others focus on trick-taking or winning the final trick. Players also typically have two chances per round to trade in cards, allowing them to adjust their strategy based on the current goal.
The defining feature of the game is the “Chicago” call. Before a round begins, a player may declare Chicago, committing to a high-risk goal (usually winning all five tricks). Success earns a large reward; failure carries a heavy penalty. A player cannot win the game unless they have successfully called Chicago at least once.
Game Two: Hanabi
Hanabi is a cooperative card game where players work together to build colour-coded stacks in numerical order, usually from 1 to 5. Players hold their cards facing outward, meaning everyone can see others’ cards but not their own.
On each turn, a player can give a limited hint, attempt to play a card, or discard a card to regain a hint token. Because communication is restricted, most decisions rely on inference and shared understanding. Mistakes affect the entire group.
The game ends when the stacks are completed, the team runs out of mistake tokens, or the deck is exhausted. The final score reflects collective success.
Comparison
Chicago and Hanabi feel very different—one competitive and tense, the other careful and cooperative, but both rely on incomplete information and inference. In Chicago, players infer others’ hands; in Hanabi, players infer their own. Both reward attention, memory, and timing, even though they produce very different player experiences.
Exercise 2.6: Challenge
Three games I find particularly challenging are Risk, Settlers of Catan, and Chess. All three reward assertive strategy and long-term planning, which does not always come naturally to me. I tend to play defensively and don’t feel especially competitive, so I often focus on avoiding mistakes rather than pushing aggressively toward a win.
Risk encourages bold expansion and calculated risk-taking, which can feel uncomfortable given the uncertainty of dice rolls and alliances. I often hesitate to overextend, preferring to protect what I have rather than gamble on major moves.
Settlers of Catan presents a similar challenge, but through social dynamics. The game rewards negotiation and timing, while my instinct is to play conservatively and avoid drawing attention.
Chess removes randomness entirely, which makes every mistake feel more exposed. I often default to defensive play, and the challenge becomes knowing when to shift from protecting myself to pressing an advantage.
Across all three games, what I find most challenging is the expectation of confidence and forward momentum. While the sources of pressure differ (randomness, social negotiation, or pure calculation), they all reward assertive play. As a more cautious, less competitive player, that makes them engaging but consistently difficult.
Intellectual Production # 1
James Paul Gee (2008), “Cats and Portals”
Descriptive
In “Cats and Portals,” James Paul Gee argues that well-designed commercial video games can support deep learning because they frame problem solving as playful and engaging rather than instructional. He introduces the idea of play as discovery, using the metaphor of cats exploring their environment to describe how players experiment, notice new possibilities, and adapt their understanding as the game responds to their actions. Through examples from Portal and a story about a young woman learning Photoshop by designing clothing for The Sims, Gee shows how access to the right tools can change what learners notice and imagine, allowing expertise to develop through interest-driven exploration.
Analytical
Gee’s argument is compelling in its focus on discovery and interest-driven learning, but it sometimes assumes that simply having access to powerful tools and playful environments is enough to support meaningful learning for most players. While he makes a strong case for learning that emerges through play and problem solving, it is less clear how this kind of learning is meant to be recognized or valued within formal educational settings.
Burning Question
If learning in games is driven by discovery and exploration through powerful tools, how does Gee imagine this learning being carried forward or made visible beyond the game itself, particularly in contexts where learning needs to be recognized or shared with others?
Elisabeth Gee & James Paul Gee (2017), “Games as Distributed Teaching and Learning Systems”
Descriptive
In “Games as Distributed Teaching and Learning Systems,” Elisabeth Gee and James Paul Gee argue that learning around video games does not happen in isolation, but across broader networks of people, tools, spaces, and practices that extend well beyond the game itself. They frame learning as something that develops through experience and interaction, describing how people learn by engaging in ongoing “conversations” with others, with the world, and with games that respond to their actions. Using Portal as a central example, the authors illustrate how gameplay, online communities, creation tools, and informal social interactions come together to form dynamic learning systems in which teaching and learning are shared, participatory, and shaped by access to support and resources.
Analytical
The idea of distributed teaching and learning systems is helpful for thinking about how learning happens across games, communities, tools, and relationships, rather than within a single space or platform. At the same time, the framework invites questions about how differences in access to resources, mentorship, and social support shape who is actually able to participate in these systems and benefit from them.
Burning Question
Within the framework of distributed teaching and learning systems, how do the authors account for who gets supported into these networks and who does not, and what role might educators play in helping learners navigate or access these systems more equitably?
Bridge
Both articles emphasize learning as something that develops through experience, interaction, and exploration rather than through direct instruction alone. While Cats and Portals focuses more closely on how individuals discover new possibilities through play and tools, Games as Distributed Teaching and Learning Systems extends this idea outward to show how that discovery is shaped, supported, and limited by broader social and material networks. Of the two, the distributed learning systems framework made me especially curious about how our work this semester might engage with learning that happens across multiple spaces, communities, and tools rather than within a single designed activity.
AI statement
I used AI to review my draft against the assignment rubric and to support revision for clarity, cohesion, and tone. All ideas and final wording were reviewed and adapted to ensure they reflect my own understanding and voice.
References
Gee, J. P. (2008). Cats and portals: Video games, learning, and play. American Journal of Play, 1(2), 229–253.
Gee, E. R., & Gee, J. P. (2017). Games as distributed teaching and learning systems. Teachers College Record, 119(12), 1–22.