Those are in order of power; lectures are difficult to follow, while stories have their own momentum, and well-designed games and play can deeply engage students.

There’s a proverb: “Tell me and I’ll forget. Show me, and I might remember. Involve me, and I’ll understand.”

Play is one of the most powerful and efficient ways of learning we can engage in. This is why pilots fly simulators, why soldiers play wargames, why high school chemistry students do lab work. They’re not really doing science; they’re playing at science, and learning invaluable lessons about technique and scientific method as a result.

Some of our most respected games – sports – originated as training for war. What is Polo, or Hurling if not practise for braining someone with a club (horse optional)?

Even in classes, I’ve heard of teachers using games from the Civilization series to teach world history.

This works, because fun in video games is essentially a process of problem-solving. The game designer sets a challenge, and it’s up to the player to figure out how to solve it. The process of figuring that out is creative and can be intellectually demanding.

Raph Koster has done some great writing on this.

Adams (2009, “The case for video games in libraries”, Library Review) notes that, “there are parallels evident between game culture and real life information needs and uses”. Adams also made the interesting point that games often promote “emphatic identification” in the gamers, promoting social/emotional development.

Games can consequently have similar potentials for personal and intellectual development as other digital resources. I think once more people eventually realise this, the ‘g’ word will get the respect it deserves.