Category Archives: Games in Education

What’s a game for a teacher?

I came across this:

while many teachers say they are using digital games in the classroom, a lot of the time they just mean interactive activities or worksheets.”

With this example.

"For example, a recent study from A-GAMES, a research collaboration between New York 
University and the University of Michigan, last year surveyed 488 K-12 teachers, and 
found that “more than half of teachers (57 percent) use digital games weekly or more often in teaching.” That’s a pretty high adoption rate. But according to Millstone, “the most frequently used ‘games’ aren’t really games at all.” Teachers seem to label any 
interactive activity that happens on a laptop or a tablet a ‘game.’ The categories are unclear. To which activity does each buzzword refer? What counts as blended learning? 
What’s the difference between game-based learning and gamification?"

Teachers or administrators, who’s the real problem?

Like most debates agreeing on definitions is the starting point. Though at the moment I have a few questions first.

  • What is a game?
  • Do teachers define games differently when they use them in education?
  • Do the participants distinguish between playing a game for “fun” and playing a game in classroom?

I used games in teaching to the learners talking and thinking in English, in TEFL classes. My answer to the above three questions is that you have to remember to respect the players desire to have an outcome.

As the teacher I am not concerned or interested in who won the game, or how the players were ranked at the end of the game. I just want my lesson aims to be achieved. But if you have really engaged your learners – and this applies to adults as well as children – they will want to know their scores or at least what happened at the end. There is an need for immediate outcome: success, or failure. There is a need to compare each others achievement. They are competitive.

If “the thing you call a game” doesn’t provide

  1. an outcome – success or failure
  2. comparative performance – a ranking structure that is obvious to all participants
  3. the thrill of competition

It ain’t a game.





A bee needs 6 grams of honey

A bee needs to eat 6 grams of honey to make 1 gram of wax or beeswax. This is the assertion made in the description of the production of beeswax at the Design Museum.

The production of beeswax and its use in efficient hexagons inspired Torsten Sherwood to choose honeycomb as their top design structure.

Personally, I find the evolutionary explanation of honeycomb to be all the more 
wondrous and inspiring. In a world limited in resources, bees that use wax most 
efficiently are more likely to survive, and given enough time this would naturally 
produce a race of bees building the optimized hexagonal design. This insight 
reveals honeycomb true designer, not God or even the bee, but the process, design 
methodology even, of Darwinian evolution.
Honeycomb of beeswax
A honeycomb made of beeswas forming a hexagonal tessellating structure.

An interesting concept of design: a blind designer, a design process is his top designer.

I wondered if this could be modeled using algorithms.

1. How many grams can each worker bee collect to feed the colony? What is the optimal ratio of collectors to hive workers?

1. Only bees sufficiently well fed could exude beeswax?  How much beeswax do you need to make a honeycomb to breed new workers and store excess honey? How do they choose between larvae or honey?

3. If we got hives to use alternative structures, which would be able to produce the most surplus and thus survive or grow bigger.

I thought it would be a nice test of efficiency in shapes within algorithms describing a similar process, but with one aspect different, the shape of the honeycomb.