Games

I came to game-based learning the way most people do. Through play.

Long before I was writing about engagement frameworks or learning outcomes, I was the kid wondering why school felt so different from the way learning felt in a game. Games gave you clear goals, immediate feedback, a sense of progress, and the ability to fail and try again without it being permanent. Classrooms didn’t always offer all four at once.

That question never really went away. It just turned into a research focus, a doctoral degree, and an undergraduate concentration in game design.

My work at Liberty University gave me a foundation in mechanics, systems thinking, and what makes a player want to keep going. I still draw on that when I’m evaluating an educational game or thinking through how to structure a learning activity. My dissertation took a more critical look, examining whether the GBL field’s enthusiasm for concepts like flow is always backed by solid evidence. In a lot of cases, it isn’t, and that’s worth talking about.

One of the studies I’ve found most interesting came from looking at Minecraft Let’s Play videos. What I found was informal, peer-driven learning happening at scale, with viewers picking up skills and vocabulary not from an instructor but from watching other players. That kind of learning doesn’t fit neatly into most instructional design models, which is exactly why it’s worth studying.

Games are one of the most underused tools in formal education, not just because they’re engaging, but because well-designed games already embody what good instruction should look like. Clear goals, scaffolded challenge, meaningful feedback, and room to fail without lasting consequence.

That’s the version of learning I keep working toward.