Comments on “Reflections on ‘A Review of Trends in Serious Gaming’”

Abstract

In large measure the authors agree with Tobias and Fletcher’s (2012) comments stating that clearer operational definitions of game features are needed to enable research on games and learning. The authors cannot accept that games are a subset of simulations, preferring to identify instances when games and simulations overlap and when they do not. The authors caution that research focused solely on cognitive processes risks missing fundamental environmental dynamics and their rich interactions with the intentional dynamics of situated cognition. The authors point out that their specific review of games and academic achievement is complemented by the broader survey of dependent variables reviewed by Tobias and Fletcher.