Course Readings & Individual Intellectual Productions

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 Sunday, January 18th and IP8 is due on Sunday, January 25th 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 and Learning Perspectives (REQUIRED, DUE: End of week 2)

Required Readings:

  • Gee, E., & Gee, J. P. (2017). Games as distributed teaching and learning systems. Teachers College Record, 119(11). https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711901202
  • Jenson, J. & Burrell-Kim, D. (2023). Digital games and literacies. R. J. Tierney, F. Rizvi, K. Ercikan (Eds.).  International Encyclopedia of Education (4th Edition), pp. 583-589. Elsevier. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.07025-1

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.

back to top

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:

  1. Li, K., Peterson, M., Wang, Q., & Wang, H. (2025). Mapping the research trends of digital game-based language learning (DGBLL): A scientometrics review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 38(7), 1393-1422. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2299436
  2. Xiong, Z., Wu, J. G., & Lee, K. W. (2024). Research trends and hotspots of digital game-based vocabulary learning (2008-2023): A scientometrics review. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 14(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.366656
  3. Pan, Y., Ke, F., & Xu, X. (2022). A systematic review of the role of learning games in fostering mathematics education in K-12 settings. Educational Research Review, 36, 100448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100448
  4. Martinez, L., Gimenes, M., & Lambert, E. (2022). Entertainment Video Games for Academic Learning: A Systematic Review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(5), 1083-1109.
  5. Chen, P. Y., Hwang, G. J., Yeh, S. Y., Chen, Y. T., Chen, T. W., & Chien, C. H. (2022). Three decades of game-based learning in science and mathematics education: an integrated bibliometric analysis and systematic review. Journal of Computers in Education, 9(3), 455-476.
  6. Huang, Y., Saab, N., & Admiraal, W. (2024). Approaches and game elements used to tailor digital gamification for learning; A systematic literature review. Computers and Education, 212. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105000
  7. Gui, Y., Cai, Z., Yang, Y., Kong, L., Fan, X., & Tai, R. H. (2023). Effectiveness of digital educational game and game design in STEM learning: A meta-analytic review.International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 36-25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00424-9
  8. 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
  9. Kotas, J., Krejzová, E., Gimunová, M., Kumstát, M., McNulty, C., & Babula, P. (2026). Energy expenditure of esports athletes during gameplay: A systematic review.Sports Medicine – Open, 12(1), 91. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-026-01055-4
  10. Oliveira, W., Hamari, J., Shi, L., Toda, A. M., Rodrigues, L., Palomino, P. T., & Isotani, S. (2023). Tailored gamification in education: A literature review and future agenda.Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 373-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11122-4

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.

back to top

Intellectual Production #3: Learning through Game Design

Choose 2 readings:

  1. 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.
  2. Denner, J., Green, E., & Campe, S. (2021). Learning to program in middle school: How pair programming helps and hinders intrepid exploration. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(4-5), 611-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1939028
  3. Chen, C., Su, S., & Yuan, S. (2024). The effect of regular and innovative control devices on cultivating creativity in a game creating course in primary school. Education Sciences, 14(8), 833. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080833

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 by a previous 544 student! https://pjjheath.itch.io/daisy-gees-eatery-ip3-etec-544

And for those of you who like a bit of explication – here’s a bit of that in worksheet format. http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec544met/files/2019/12/TwineResourcesWorksheet.pdf

back to top

Intellectual Production #4: What is a Game?

Readings:

  1. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S., Smith, J. H., & Tosca, S. P. (2020). What is a game? In Understanding video games: The essential introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429431791 Read chapter 3: What is a game? pp 33-62.

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’.

back to top

Intellectual Production  #5: Hegemonic Play: Gatekeeping Game Culture

Readings:

  1. Cantone, G. G., Tomaselli, V., & Mazzeo, V. (2025). Review bombing: Ideology-driven polarisation in online ratings: The case study of the last of us (part II). Quality & Quantity, 59(S1), 315-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-01981-z
  2. Ore, J. (2024, April 3). Why a Montreal game consulting studio is at the centre of an online anti-diversity storm. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/sweet-baby-inc-gamergate-1.7149888
  3. Bevan, R. (2026, May 10). Slay the Spire 2 review bombed after Anita Sarkeesian spotted in credits. The Gamer. https://www.thegamer.com/slay-the-spire-2-review-bomb-anita-sarkeesian/

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.

back to top

Intellectual Production #6: Race, Sexuality, and Videogames

Readings/Media: