#LTHEchat

Led by Liz Cable @lizcable.bsky.social

There are a lot of terms associated with the use of games in learning, teaching and assessment. We’ve had previous #LTHEchats tagged game-based learning, gamification, ludic pedagogy, playful learning, serious games and role-playing. I believe we don’t talk enough about analogue game-based learning (GBL), which is a peculiarly frustrating study as the term GBL in the literature usually assumes a digital game, rather than a physical one. It’s also often confused with gamification.

Gamification is the use of mechanics found in games for the purpose of learning. This could include earning stars for your nametag as a server at McDonalds or earning a “Top Fan” badge for participation in your favourite Facebook group. Badges can be useful for scaffolding learning, and leaderboards can be motivating for students and help them benchmark their progress, but these features of gamification do not make the learning experience itself into a game . Perhaps a term like “ludification” might better express the design aims of game-based learning which are to make the experience as game-like as possible. This means designing for fun, as well as for the player autonomy that comes from a clear set of rules and sufficient world-building to define the structure and boundaries of the learning experience.

The circumstances of a successful tabletop game, whether role-playing, cooperative  board game, team challenge, pub quiz, escape game, or megagame are exactly the circumstances that we design for in an interactive classroom; participants who don’t necessarily know each other working together by combining their skills and knowledge, with a clear mission to complete, an expectation of fun and probability of success, whilst practising their social and soft skills as a by-product of these circumstances. They share the materials, ask questions, listen to each other, piece together the scenario then solve it, in whatever game format (or mix of formats) you have chosen to emulate. They share surprise, wonder, empathy, curiosity, challenge and success along the way – the aesthetics of a learning game in Hunicke’s (2004) Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics framework.

In this ideal scenario, players are left unperturbed by the personal exposition which is a feature of many “ice-breaker” style games (Cable, 2019), instead the materials of the game become the social objects (Engeström, 2005) around which the conversation is held: a piece of evidence in a police investigation, a character description of a resident in a flood scenario, a newsflash that gives a sense of urgency and geographically locates the problem on a map. Students can adopt the mantle of the expert (Heathcote & Herbert, 1985) and act “as if”, whether inside a scenario or co-creating one.

Scalability is an issue for classroom games. Commercial escape rooms usually have 6 players, board games are the same. In the classroom we need to scale up by duplicating the game enough times for the full class to participate, or by designing a game that makes a mechanism for players communicating between teams. Duplicating is the easiest solution, especially when you can have some digital elements – for example password-protected documents taking the place of physical padlocks – to make a hybrid game. Using the jigsaw classroom (Aronson, 1978), itself a useful technique for encouraging communication and movement, works well to move your students around stations in the classroom, the contents of each station will then contain an ergodic episode in your narrative.

Student attitudes can be a barrier. Undergraduates are at that crucial and contradictory age where they feel they need to put away childish things, so billing your activities as a game may not be your best marketing tactic. However, I defy you to find a student who hasn’t played Uno, or Exploding Kittens, or Cards Against Humanity… I could go on. Still, I find that inviting the students to play-test rather than play a game yields the best results. I ask them for their help in refining a game that’s in prototype, even when it’s been played a hundred times already. There is always room for improvement after all. I now design games that are deliberately broken; like controversy bait on social media, it encourages students to comment and correct, and in doing so, engage and learn.

Games should be designed to make students feel clever, curious and confident, even if that means making part or all of the game themselves. GBL offers a rich, engaging way to foster collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking, alongside the soft and social skills that have suffered. The article shares some key considerations for educators in the creation of game-based learning, including scalability, student attitudes, and design elements to ensure inclusivity and success, as well as the aesthetics – the feelings – provoked by the game, but we have more to learn.

Exploring GBL, sharing experiences, and collaborating on developing meaningful games for higher education is the way forward.

Useful notes

In January 2025 ORCID added a new set of work types for humanities research including teaching materials and by extension classroom games.

The Playful Learning Association is setting up a database of playful activities you can both use and contribute to.

If you have tabletop games of any kind to share, research or playtest with 40,000+ game enthusiasts, consider coming along to the Academic Track at UK Games Expo this year. Drop me a line if you’d like to be involved.

Biography

Liz Cable is programme lead for Digital Marketing at Leeds Trinity University and an expert in creating large-scale games for learning, training and a lot of fun. She is a narrative designer specialising in bringing online games and worlds to life in escape room, LARP and other immersive real-life game formats.

She co-wrote “Unlocking the Potential of Puzzle-based Learning. Designing Escape Rooms and Games for the Classroom” for Corwin.

References

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Sage.

Cable, L. (2019). Playful interludes. In N. Whitton & A. Moseley (Eds.), Playful learning (pp. 57–70). Routledge.

Engeström, J. (2005, April 13). Why some social network services work and others don’t — Or: The case for object-centered sociality. Zengestrom. https://web.archive.org/web/20050413200624/http://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why_some_social.html

Heathcote, D., & Herbert, P. (1985). A drama of learning: Mantle of the expert. Theory into Practice, 24(3), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848509543169

Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI (pp. 1–5). https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/pubs/MDA.pdf

Led by Lee Fallin @leefallin.bsky.social, Tom Tomlinson @tomtomlinson.bsky.social  and Gemma Spencer @gemmaspencer.bsky.social

We are all designers – so how can we get learning resource ‘design’ right?

The role of learning design is often overlooked in Higher Education (HE), but to some extent, we are all designers. As Abegglen et al. (2023) argue, education is not sprung from the Earth – it is designed over time. From the lecturer producing a set of slides for their next class to a professional service colleague making a poster for an event, design is a crucial part of such tasks. Each use of everyday applications and platforms in HE requires design choices. This includes software such as Microsoft Office 365, Google Workspace, and Canva, as well as educational platforms like Blackboard, Canvas, Moodle, Panopto, Kahoot! and Mentimeter. 

When using any software or platform, designing inclusive outputs is always the right thing to do. However, there is also an important policy perspective to inclusive learning design. Legislation like the Equality Act (2010) means we have a legal responsibility to ensure our materials and spaces are accessible. Furthermore, The Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations legally require public bodies, including universities, to address the accessibility of their content. There are also regulatory frameworks, such as the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) and the Office for Students (OfS) expectations, which push us to consider how we can enhance student outcomes for all learners—particularly those from underrepresented groups. 

When we talk about design in teaching and learning, it’s easy to think of it as something ‘extra’—perhaps the fonts and colours we choose or the images and diagrams we add. But in reality, these design decisions form a vital part of how we communicate with our students – inside and outside the classroom or lecture theatre. Inclusive learning design is so important because, in today’s diverse and dynamic HE environment, students arrive with a vast range of prior experiences, cultural backgrounds, and individual learning needs. These learning needs could include alt text for those with an visual impairment, an ability to use text-to-speech for those with dyslexia or the ability to navigate an app without the use of hands (or limbs). Where not met, such needs would lead to a reasonable adjustment request, but we can do better and should preemptively meet such needs wherever possible. For this, we must ask ourselves: Who does our design invite to participate, and who does it leave behind? The real problem is that this isn’t easy. The average professional working in HE isn’t a trained designer. While frameworks like Universal Design for Learning and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) exist, they are complicated – and can be difficult for practitioners to interpret. In recognising these challenges, we designed a HE-focused set of design guidance that could fit on a single sheet: Designing for Diverse Learners. You can read the background to our project online, or check out the guidance here: Designing for Diverse Learners (D4DL). While we would not claim to have addressed every issue, we have produced a clear set of principles that are a solid starting point.

Learn more at https://designingfordiverselearners.info/

Ultimately, embracing inclusive design doesn’t require expensive software or specialist know-how—often, it’s just about making small, deliberate choices. It is a mindset — thinking accessibility and inclusion first. From adding alternative text to images in PowerPoint to structuring Word documents with proper headings, these changes can have a profound effect on accessibility. Once you start thinking about inclusive design, you find it permeates everything, from planning a lecture to setting up group activities or encouraging participation in seminars. The next step is to instill such practices within our students. 

References

Abegglen, S., Burns, T., & Sinfield, S. (2023) Designing education: The role of learning design in higher education. London: Academic Press.

Equality Act (2010) Equality Act 2010, c.15. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents (Accessed: 4 February 2025).

Office for Students (OfS) (n.d.) Regulatory framework for higher education in England. Available at: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/ (Accessed: 4 February 2025).

Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) (n.d.) Teaching Excellence Framework. Available at: https://www.tef.education.gov.uk/ (Accessed: 4 February 2025).

The Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations (2018) The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018, SI 2018/952. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/952/contents/made (Accessed: 4 February 2025).

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (n.d.) Universal Design for Learning Guidelines. Available at: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/ (Accessed: 4 February 2025).

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) (n.d.) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/ (Accessed: 4 February 2025).

Biographies

Lee Fallin, University of Hull

Lee Fallin is a Lecturer in Education Studies at the University of Hull. His research focuses on the intersections between education and geography, inclusive of physical and digital spaces. His current research interests include learning spaces and communities, inclusive digital practice, research methodologies and geographies of place.

Thomas Tomlinson, University of Hull

Tom Tomlinson works as an Educational Developer at the University of Hull. Tom develops and promotes excellent teaching. Tom has a background in design and explores the practical application of technology to enhance learning.

Gemma Spencer, University of Central Lancashire

Gemma Spencer is a Registered Nurse and Lecturer in Pre-Registration Nursing at the University of Central Lancashire and holds Fellowship status with Advance HE. Gemma is passionate about using innovative and creative techniques to support accessible and inclusive education for all. Connect with Gemma on LinkedIn. 

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the LTHEchat organisers for inviting us to chat, and in particular, thanks to Jorge Freire, who provided valuable feedback. We hope Grammarly has helped us quash the typos, and we would also like to share thanks to our wider D4DL team for their work on the project and comments on this article: Ellie Davison, Kate Wright and Gemma Spencer. 

Led by Suzanne Faulkner (SFHEA), teaching fellow in Prosthetics and Orthotics, within the department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, and  Dr Kiu Sum, lecturer in Nutrition in the Department of Sport and Health at Southampton Solent University. 

The Benefits and Barriers to Playful Learning in Higher Education 

Playful learning is an educational approach that integrates elements of play into learning activities, and it is gaining recognition as a powerful pedagogical tool in higher (HE) and further education (FE). It is often defined as an active, engaged, and enjoyable form of learning that encourages curiosity, creativity, and collaboration.  

Two sessions led by Suzanne Faulkner:  learning about gait through painting feet and analysing footprints, exploring aspects such as step length and walking base width, and Lego Serious Play session with 2nd-year students.

The ‘magic circle’ and play in Higher Education.

The concept of the ‘magic circle’ of playfulness originally introduced by Huizina (1995) and was expanded upon by Salen and Zimmerman (2004), refers to the space where play occurs, explaining how relationships and realities are constructed during play. This occurs through the creation of a specific social situation, where participants cross virtual boundaries and enter another world with accepted and defined rules and codes of practice

Moving from the real world to the ‘magic circle’ involves moving through a liminal space. As learners move through this threshold, they often encounter a transformative process where they evolve from a state of ‘not knowing’ to a state of ‘knowing’, letting go of old ideas to develop and change to embrace and explore new ideas.

One of the key defining features of the magic circle of playfulness is that this is a safe space where mistakes are not only tolerated but encouraged. However, it is important to remember that in the HE/FE context that simply introducing playful activities and games does not create a safe environment, this is developed through developing relationships with their fellow learners over time (Whitton, 2018) to reach a place where individuals feel secure enough to take risks.

Additionally, with a playful mindset, challenges are viewed as opportunities to learn, mistakes are no longer considered as failure, but an opportunity to learn (Guitard et al., 2005). Play facilitates soft fails, fail without consequences. There are not many opportunities for soft fails, or to fail safely in higher education (Forbes, 2021). Doing so helps to build resilience and allows students to take managed risks and develop resilience.

Permission to play

Goffman’s order of interaction discussed in his work “The Presentation of Self in Everyday” (1959), outlines how individuals negotiate their roles and the expectations of others in social interactions. Goffman refers to the “backstage” and “frontstage” dynamics of social life, which ties into permission to play by determining when and how individuals feel free to express themselves or engage in playful behaviour, this is particularly relevant in Higher Education.

Front stage relates to the public persona where people manage their appearance and behaviour to an expected norm, whereas backstage refers to instances where people can be their authentic self.

As such, implementing playful learning in HE and FE settings, both in the UK and globally, presents notable challenges. This blog explores its benefits and barriers.

Using the game ‘Who am i?’ with glasses to learn spinal anatomy and playdoh to learn about different types of cervical (neck fractures). Session facilitated by Suzanne Faulkner

Benefits of Playful Learning in Higher Education

1. Enhanced Engagement and Motivation
   One of the most significant benefits of playful learning is the increased engagement it facilitates. Traditional educational methods can often lead to passive learning, where students are mere recipients of information. Playful learning, on the other hand, encourages active participation, making learning more enjoyable and stimulating. Pivec (2007) highlights that when students engage in playful activities, such as role-playing, gamification, or problem-solving challenges, they are more likely to remain motivated and enthusiastic about their studies.
2. Development of Critical Thinking and Creativity
   Playful learning encourages students to ‘think outside the box’ and explore new ways of solving problems. Activities such as games, simulations, or interactive workshops – particularly when real-world problems are posed – require students to apply critical thinking, adapt to new information, and work collaboratively. This process helps to foster creativity, as students are encouraged to experiment with ideas and approaches in a low-stakes environment. In HE/FE, where innovation and original thinking are highly valued, these skills are essential for academic and professional success.
3. Fostering Collaborative Learning
   Playful learning often involves group activities, which can enhance collaborative work. In HE and FE settings, group projects and peer-to-peer learning are integral parts of the academic experience. Playful learning settings, such as team-based games or interactive exercises, encourage communication, teamwork, and the sharing of ideas. These social learning environments can help students build relationships, strengthen networks, and develop interpersonal skills that are valuable in both academic and professional contexts.
4. Stress Reduction and Well-Being
   The pressure of university life can be overwhelming, and students may experience stress, anxiety, or burnout. Playful learning offers a means to mitigate these challenges by creating a more relaxed and enjoyable atmosphere for learning. Importantly, students who engage in play are more likely to overcome challenges and think of new, innovative solutions (Walsh, 2015). Engaging in play-related activities can trigger the release of dopamine, associated with feelings of pleasure and reward. This can lead to improved mental well-being and a greater sense of fulfilment in academic pursuits.

Barriers to Playful Learning in Higher Education

1. Perceived Lack of Academic Rigour
   One of the most significant barriers to adopting playful learning in HE is the perception that it lacks academic rigour. Many HE institutions prioritise formal assessments, research output, and traditional teaching methods. As a result, there is a reluctance to embrace playful learning, which is sometimes viewed as trivial or not serious enough for academic environments. Some educators and students may also feel that playful learning is incompatible with the expectations of higher education, which often emphasise critical thinking, discipline-specific knowledge, and assessment-driven learning.
2. Resource Constraints
   Implementing playful learning in HE settings can be resource-intensive and expensive. Games, simulations, and other playful activities require time, effort, and financial investment to design and execute effectively – not forgetting space to store the resources and manage them. Universities may face budget constraints that limit their ability to integrate these methods into the curriculum, which often means proponents of play end up funding resources from their own pockets. Additionally, academic staff may require training in how to facilitate playful learning experiences, which can further strain institutional resources (Lester & Russell, 2010). This is particularly challenging for institutions with limited resources or those focused on large-scale lectures rather than interactive or experiential learning.
3. Cultural and Institutional Resistance
   Despite the evidenced benefits of play in HE, resistance to play in HE persists (James, 2022), with transmissive learning often the unquestioned norm in academia (Koeners & Francis, 2020). There may also be cultural resistance to playful learning in HE/FE In many academic environments, especially in more traditional or conservative settings, there is an entrenched belief in the value of formal instruction and the separation between work and play.  A significant problem identified is misunderstanding the role of play in HE. The continuing stigma of play, thought of as frivolous, lacking rigour and a loss of credibility continues to be barriers faced by the proponents of play (Koeners & Francis, 2020).  The shift towards a more playful and interactive approach may be met with scepticism or resistance from both faculty and students who are accustomed to conventional teaching methods. This can create barriers to the widespread adoption of playful learning practices, as some educational stakeholders may fear that such approaches could undermine the perceived value of the academic experience.
4. Assessment Challenges
   Playful learning can pose challenges when it comes to assessment. Traditional forms of assessment, such as exams and essays, do not always align with the experiential and dynamic nature of playful learning activities. This mismatch between learning and assessment methods can make it difficult to measure the outcomes of playful learning accurately. Additionally, is appears, there is a lack of established frameworks for evaluating the effectiveness of playful learning, which may deter educators from adopting it in their teaching practices.

Learning foot anatomy with pasta and vegetables. Session facilitated by Suzanne Faulkner.

Conclusion

Playful learning offers numerous benefits in HE and FE settings, including increased engagement, the development of critical thinking and creativity, enhanced collaboration, and improved well-being. However, its implementation faces significant barriers, such as the perception of a lack of academic rigour, resource constraints, cultural resistance, and challenges related to assessment. To overcome these barriers, institutions must create supportive environments that value innovative pedagogies (and the academics/teaching staff that spearhead these), provide adequate resources for playful learning initiatives, and develop new assessment frameworks that align with these approaches. With the right support, playful learning has the potential to significantly enrich the HE/FE experiences and prepare students for the dynamic and evolving demands of the future.

References:

Forbes, L. (2021). The Process of Playful Learning in Higher Education: A Phenomenological Study. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 15, pp. 57–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v15i1.6515

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.

Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Boston, MA: The Beacon Press.

Guitard, P., Ferland, F., & Dutil, É. (2005). Toward a Better Understanding of Playfulness in Adults. OTJR: Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 25(1), pp. 9–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/153944920502500103

James, A. (2022). The Use and Value of Play in HE: A Study. Independent scholarship supported by The Imagination Lab Foundation. Available at: https://engagingimagination.com

Koeners, M. P. & Francis, J. (2020). The physiology of play: Potential relevance for higher education. International Journal of Play, 9(1), pp. 143–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2020.1720128

Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Walsh, A. (2015). Playful Information Literacy: Play and Information Literacy in Higher Education. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 7(1), pp. 80–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15845/noril.v7i1.223

Whitton, N. J. (2018). Playful Learning: Tools, Techniques, and Tactics. Research in Learning Technology, 26, pp. 1–12. ISSN: 2156-7069. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2035

Author Biographies

Suzanne Faulkner

Suzanne Faulkner (SFHEA) is a teaching fellow in Prosthetics and Orthotics, within the department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, she is also a facilitator trained in the LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP) methodology. Suzanne is passionate about enhancing the student experience by focusing on improving student engagement, utilising social media in learning and teaching and incorporating playful learning. She has been nominated and shortlisted for several teaching excellence awards and is currently undertaking an EdD, evaluating the use of LSP to enhance participation of students who have English as an additional language in group work activities.

X: @SFaulknerPandO

Bluesky: @sfaulknerpando.bsky.social

Dr Kiu Sum

Dr Kiu Sum is a Lecturer in Nutrition in the Department of Sport and Health at Southampton Solent University. With a BSc(Hons) and MRes in Human Nutrition, Kiu’s mixed-methods research includes workplace nutrition, public health nutrition, and nutritional behaviour. Kiu’s PhD explored doctors’ and nurses’ nutrition during shift work. Aside from nutrition, she is a pedagogy researcher focusing on student engagement and partnerships, assessments and feedback.

Kiu is a Registered Nutritionist (Nutritional Science) with the Association for Nutrition (AfN) and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Kiu is a member of The Nutrition Society, Chair of the Institute of Food Science and Technology’s South East Branch Committee, the Communications Officer of the UK Society for Behavioural Medicine’s Early Career Network. She serves as Secretary at the RAISE Network, where she also convenes the Engaging Assessment and the Early Career Researchers Special Interest Groups. With an interest in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), Kiu serves on ALDinHE’s Steering Group and leads the EDI Working Group.

X: @ KiuSum

BlueSky: @kiusum.bsky.social