Episode 119 Sarah Le-Fevre on Play and Impactful Learning
Sarah Le-Fevre on Play and Impactful Learning
Episode Summary:
In this episode of "Experience Points" by University XP, host Dave Eng interviews Sarah Le-Fevre, a games-based learning professional with expertise in addressing complex organizational challenges and fostering ethical innovation. Le-Fevre uses tools like Lego Serious Play to create immersive learning experiences. The discussion covers Le-Fevre's background in games and learning, her journey into games-based learning, and her experiences addressing systemic challenges within organizations. The conversation also touches on the diversity of Le-Fevre's projects, including keepsake games for organizational wellness and fungi-themed organizational culture games. Furthermore, Le-Fevre provides insights into her upcoming book, which explores a playful systems practice approach to impactful learning. The book challenges traditional learning design methodologies and emphasizes the need to consider the broader system when implementing organizational change.
Sarah Le-Fevre
she/her/hers
Games-based learning professional and game designer
Ludogogy Magazine
Sarah Le-Fevre is a games-based learning professional who specializes in organizational learning around systemic ‘wicked problems,’ and helping businesses spot and exploit opportunities for ethical ‘for good’ innovation. Working with tools, such as Lego® Serious Play®, and games, created by herself and others, she aims to create compelling, immersive learning experiences. She is currently writing a book outlining a playful systems practice approach to delivering impactful learning within organizations. A real board games nerd, Sarah is considering having her floors reinforced to support the ever increasing weight of the boxes. When she is not designing or facilitating learning games she is the editor of Ludogogy Magazine (an online resource for all things games-based learning, gamification and gameful design). At the moment, she is working on, variously, a keepsake game for organizational wellness, an asemic card deck and a fungi-themed organizational culture game.
(Twitter): https://twitter.com/ludogogy
(LinkedIn): https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarahlefevre/
(YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYFveteV9BZlHztKTeUfCKA
(Website): https://ludogogy.co.uk
Dave Eng:
Hi, and welcome to Experience Points by University XP. On Experience Points, we explore different ways we can learn from games. I'm your host, Dave Eng, from games-based learning by University XP. Find out more at www.universityxp.com. On today's episode, we'll learn from Sarah Le-Fevre. Sarah Le-Fevre is a games-based learning professional specializing in addressing complex organizational challenges and fostering ethical innovation. Using tools like Lego Serious Play, she creates immersive learning experiences. As of this recording, Sarah's writing a book on playful systems practice. Sarah is also the editor of Ludogogy Magazine and co-host of the Ludogogy Podcast. A devoted board games enthusiast, she's considering reinforcing her floors due to the growing weight of her game collection. Sarah, welcome to the show!
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Thank you very much for having me, Dave. It's a pleasure, as always, to talk to you.
Dave Eng:
Likewise. Thank you, Sarah. I know that when I moved into my current home right now, I think my board games were the bulk of the weight for the movers. It was an undisputed amount of 60+ cardboard boxes, and they kept asking me what were these, and I said, "board games," and they're like, "That's a lot of board games," so I totally identify with needing to reinforce the floors. I haven't done so yet, but I might have to in the future. It's an unfortunate reality.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
The weight of the board games hasn't quite overtaken the weight of the books yet, but... Yeah.
Dave Eng:
That's true. Oh yeah, books.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
It could come.
Dave Eng:
That's true. I collect books as well. Not as many as board games, but I do understand that. But with that being said, Sarah, I wanted to talk a little bit more about your background. Because I know you, I've known you for a few years now, but not a lot of the listeners may have known you, so I'm going to start off with this question, so specifically in your origin story in games-based learning. Can you share more about your journey into the world of games-based learning, and what inspired you to specialize in addressing systemic "wicked" problems within organizations?
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Well, there's kind of two prongs to that origin story because, of course, there's the games, and then there's the learning as well. As far as games go, I can't really remember a time when I didn't play games. Most of my most vivid memories of childhood, in terms of family, are of playing. When we got together, playing board games, and particularly card games. Sort of very much trans generationally as well, because my grandparents were very, very keen card players, and I think that got passed on to my parents. Also, outside of that board game, that kind of organized play, if you like. As a child I had a very, very sort of vivid imaginary life, I suppose. I mean, I can remember we had quite a large garden, and I can remember most of my time. My sort of unguided play, if you like, was...
I guess roleplaying would be the best way to put it, so I was definitely prepared for when my later teens came along and I discovered Dungeons and Dragons. I was already sort of well primed for all of that. So, games have always been a big part of my life, and play has always been extremely important to me, so when I moved into the world of work, like a lot of us, I think fell into learning as sort of an approach and as a career. When you find you enjoy topics and subjects, I think inevitably you often discover that a good way of sharing those with other people is teaching and learning, so that's kind of how I fell into that.
But I started out, my start in that journey, because my very first job was kind of in computer support, so I kind of fell into computer training through that, which is kind of an extension of that. As a topic, I think we probably can agree that teaching people how to use software in a university setting, teaching staff how to use software, is not the most exciting prospect, particularly for them. And so I found that one of the ways in which that could be made more fun, and I think it was quite selfish. I don't think I was necessarily trying to make it more fun for them, I think I was trying to make it more fun for me.
Dave Eng:
That makes sense, yeah.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
But the two things seemed to go hand in hand, so inevitably, I started including playful activities and games to a certain extent. I mean, as an example, I would often, if I was teaching programming skills, I might combine that with a kind of narrative, so instead of just setting people a sorting, write a sort algorithm, write a whatever, a bit of code that does some sorting, I might link that to a Sherlock Holmes mystery, or something like that, so there's a bit of narrative behind it. As time went on, and I guess as well, the environment in which I was operating was changing as well, because games-based learning was becoming a thing in its own right and becoming slightly more respectable.
I don't know if it's ever actually become entirely respectable, but certainly it was becoming more accepted. And so inevitably over that time, I felt more enabled to make games a larger part of the learning that I was designing and facilitating for people. And so over time, the kind of chalk and talk aspects, what most people would consider to be traditional learning techniques, sort of fell away until I'm at where I'm at now, which is where the games are, the learning, and the play is the learning. What would be considered teaching and learning techniques that I learned when I did my teacher training are subsidiary to that rather than the other way round.
To answer the second part of your question, over time, because I was in computer-based learning and so on, I was working a lot within organizations. I was often doing a lot of software rollout, floor walking kinds of things, and through that, so that kind of gradually morphed into doing more and more people-based teaching and learning. Soft skills, and eventually things like leadership and strategy, and so on and so forth, and that's where I kind of segued into tackling these big systemic problems because it seemed that... It was kind of a meta problem for me, I guess, because it seemed to me that there were issues within the actual process of teaching and learning itself. The systems we were operating in weren't working awfully well, and this kind of came to a head, I think, when I was working...
A few years ago now, I was working in the environmental space, and looking a lot at, well, the big existential problems that we're facing. Things like climate change, ecosystem degradation, and so on. It just struck me that games were, games being systems themselves, were eminently suitable for helping us to tackle those big problems, because it enables people not only to play a game and all of those things that go along with that, making the learning fun and allowing people to have an experience that they wouldn't otherwise have in a safe setting. All the things that go along with simulating real life as opposed to actually trying to live it, but also the very structure of games fosters that kind of systemic thinking, which is so needed when you're thinking about things like how the climate is being compromised, or how organizations work as well, and I hope that answers your question.
Dave Eng:
It does. Thank you, Sarah. I'm always fascinated when people share their origin stories. There are so many similarities. Like you brought up before, I grew up playing games. A lot of board games, a lot of card games. Many video games and console games as well. They kind of fell off the shelf for me for a while, and I just grew up. Went to college, went to grad school, and then got into education, teaching and learning, and I guess similar to you, I was like, "You know what? I like education, I like training. I like teaching, generally, as an activity." It was something that was very professionally endearing to me, but I also had this nagging feeling about, "Is there some other purpose for games other than entertainment and commercialization?" It leads to a lot of the same things you talked about before, right? You said you worked in higher education in the university system before?
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Yep, yeah.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, yeah, so same thing for me. I was working in the administration. I started using games to do staff training, so not necessarily for faculty members or administrators, but for mostly undergraduate students in general, and that kind of morphed into using games for teaching and learning, like I agree with what you said about how games are. A lot of games that are simulations are also representations of a larger system overall, and if you can understand the game system, that game system is a representation of an analogy for climate change, or weather systems, or changes in a geopolitical system, or climate, or anything else. I feel like games are such an applicable use for teaching and learning. I really wish more people used them.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Absolutely. It's one of my big hobbyhorses, is I get very, very upset, particularly when it's other people who work in teaching or learning, and particularly in games-based learning, when they kind of reduce the idea of using games in learning to the idea of sugaring the pill, which to me has two major problems. The first one being is that games are, they're more than that. They're a pedagogy in their own right. To just use them to sugar the pill is just really selling them short, but secondly, and I think the thing that upsets me even more about that is the fundamental implication there that learning is not something people want to do, that it needs to be sugared.
In actual fact, I tend to look at things the other way round. I think that learning is intrinsically fun, and the reason that good games are fun is because you're learning while you're playing them. All of the games that have stood the test of time, things like chess, backgammon, and so on and so forth, the reason they are good games is because they give you almost infinite opportunities to learn and improve and get better at something.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, definitely.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
So, to say that games-based learning is all about making learning fun sort of damns both games and learning, I think, and makes me quite angry.
Dave Eng:
Right, yeah. I feel like that's, it's thinking with a very limited mindset.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Yeah.
Dave Eng:
That actually brings me into the second question. You talked a little bit about your work before, but I'd like to dive into it with your diversity in projects. I know your work spans lots and various different projects, from a keepsake game for organizational wellness to a fungi-themed organizational culture game, so my question for you, Sarah, is how do you approach the diversity of these projects, and what challenges and opportunities arise when working on such distinct themes? How do you approach this work?
Sarah Le-Fevre:
So, getting diversity in my work is the least of my problems. Keeping diversity out of my work would be something that I would like to be able to do. One of the things that is both very useful, but also a big blocker in my professional life is the fact that I have ADHD, so attracting diversity is not an issue. Any new thing that comes along, I will automatically absorb it into whatever I'm currently doing, and quite often, it will subsume things that I should be doing and take over, so I think the challenge in that is to actually get focused enough to get anything finished. It helps a lot if I actually am working to a brief, but quite often, again, because of the ADHD, and the kind of absorbing everything that comes along quite often, I'm working a lot on speculative projects, so the two that you mentioned are actually speculative projects.
What usually gets those done is when I find somebody who is similarly interested in those, who is willing to be my client, and then it starts to get a little bit more... There starts to be a bit more of a brief to it, but I'm rambling a bit, which kind of illustrates my point, I guess, to a certain extent. But yes, it is challenging, the diversity, because the diversity tends to come from the way that I look at the world rather than any kind of organization. It's all a bit chaotic, I guess, and the way I approach it is, I have to be very disciplined about it. I remember, about two or three years ago, somebody approached me because they were I think, from what I could gather, having similar problems themselves. That they'd got a lot of projects on the go, and they were maybe feeling a little bit overwhelmed by everything they had underway.
They actually approached me and said, "Oh, we'd like you to come along and kind of help us to administrate all of this, because you are the most organized person we know," and I'm going, "You are really joking." I sometimes, to some people, come across like that because I have to be so disciplined, and I have to have so many kind of supports and structures in place. Lists of lists, and so on and so forth, so to some people who don't maybe know me so well, that comes across as being excessively organized when a natural fact, what it is a crutch to make sure that things actually get done and that I keep things sensibly separated from each other as I'm working.
Dave Eng:
I don't know if it's an apt analogy, Sarah, so tell me if this is incorrect, but have you ever heard of an analogy about the duck slowly gliding across the pond. People look at the duck, and they're like, "Wow, that duck is so graceful," but underneath the water, the duck is furiously pumping its legs to get where it's going. Do you feel like that's an apt analogy?
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Absolutely. Yeah, yes, and it's very apt at the moment. I don't know if you've heard, there's a lot of flooding going on in the UK at the moment. It's all subsiding a bit now, but we actually-
Dave Eng:
Oh, I didn't hear about that.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
The Thames is at the bottom of my road.
Dave Eng:
Oh, I see.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
About a hundred yards away, the Thames. It came a good deal closer than that this week.
Dave Eng:
Oh, I see.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Yeah, the Swans, which are normally a hundred yards away, were kind of like 50 yards away, and it was all getting a bit scary.
Dave Eng:
We have some related flooding in a New York City area, New Jersey area, by me as well as of this recording, so I empathize with you.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Yeah. I had to empty my cellar at the weekend.
Dave Eng:
Oh, I see. Yeah, you don't want that to get flooded.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
With some alacrity.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, you don't want... The Thames is beautiful. You want it to be close, but not too close.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Yes. Yes, indeed.
Dave Eng:
All right, so I want to talk about Play & Impactful Learning, so for this, I'd like to know about that book you're working on. Currently, you're working on that book, outlining a playful systems practice approach to impactful learning, so could you provide a sneak peek into the key principles or concepts that you're exploring in the book, and hopefully the title that you're working on too?
Sarah Le-Fevre:
I would say that the genesis of the ideas behind that book and the book itself, which, again, is another thing that is dragging itself on a bit because new ideas keep coming along and I keep incorporating them. I need to know when to stop. But the idea behind that, it was a kind of reaction to... I talked briefly earlier about the systems of learning in which we operate, and it was kind of a reaction to some quite deep dissatisfaction with that, and going back again to the times when I was working, doing environmental learning with a corporate audience, so I was dealing with fairly big corporate, well, very big corporate organizations internationally and high-level individuals within those organizations on fairly long-term learning programs.
So, we'd take them away for a protracted period of time, it could be anything between four days and a couple of weeks, for fairly intense learning programs around the climate challenges, and how they might integrate resilience within their organizations, and how they might assist with the global drive to tackle these problems. What I used to find with these programs is that people will be deeply impacted by them in the very short term, so when you talk about impactful learning, we would get to the end of the program and the impact was very deep in certain of the programs that I went on or facilitated. We'd end up with hardened corporate executives in tears at the end of the program because of what they'd found out about the threats we're facing, basically what we've done as a species.
At the end, like a lot of these programs, the way that we had structured the learning, we got people to create action plans. In some cases, there were issues with the action plans with some of the programs we were doing, but that was more to do with the way that the learning had been designed and structured. But if I talk about this particularly impactful program that I was talking about, people were coming out with some really, really high level. When I say high level, I mean sort of quite impactful. What could be quite impactful and fundamental kind of action plans that they were going to take back into their workplace, which was great, so in terms of the kind of initial evaluation of the learning, it had a great deal of impact on people. It really affected them both in terms of knowledge, and in the effective domain, and they went away with something really concrete that they were going to do.
The problem was that when we contacted them six months later to see what progress had been made, no progress had been made. Basically, the learning died on contact with business as usual, so although people were really deeply affected and were really motivated to do something, when they got back into the workplace, they literally found they couldn't do it, and there were various reasons. They would go back in, there wouldn't be time, so they wouldn't have time to practice the new skills or implement the action plans that they'd decided they wanted to implement. Other problems would be they had no support from their line management, and although they were quite high-level people, they weren't necessarily C-suite, so they would find that they didn't have support for putting these things into place, so they literally couldn't do them because they didn't have the agency to do them.
They would just get so tied up with all of the things that they had to do that things just didn't happen. In terms of what the organization had invested in these people to send them on these programs, and what they were paying us to deliver these programs and so on, this was a significant investment over a long period of time, and it wasn't delivering. It wasn't delivering anything that you would want to see, that either our organization or the target organization of the people we were training wouldn't want to see either, so I got to thinking about this. The conclusion that I came to was that when you're dealing with corporate learning, or any learning really, you're dealing with a very small subset of people and activities within an organization, so you have this specialized set of activities and materials which are known as courses, or learning materials, or whatever, and you're targeting a very small number of people, the learners.
But if you actually look at the system that you're trying to influence, the system is much bigger than that. With traditional learning design, where you go, "Okay. We've got some corporate aims that we want to meet, so what we're going to do is, we're going to design this learning. We're going to design some learning objectives, and to support those learning objectives, we're going to have outcomes, learning outcomes, and so on and so forth," so the OOO design of learning, which is what we were using at the time.
Dave Eng:
Can you go through the OOO?
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Yeah, so it's outcomes, objectives... Oh God, I can't even remember now. I've rejected it so fully. What is it?
Dave Eng:
Outcomes, objectives and-
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Outputs.
Dave Eng:
Oh, okay.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
The outputs would be the actual learning material that you create. The quizzes and the classes, and the activities, and so on.
Dave Eng:
Okay.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
I kind of looked at this and thought about it quite deeply, and I thought, "Well, there's two big problems with this." One is there is a very, very big assumption implicit in this, and that is that individual learning outcomes will necessarily aggregate to these objectives, these big, larger objectives, and it clearly wasn't happening so we were sort of going, "Well, if we send these people that we've selected, these learners that we've selected on this." To give a really simple example, let's say you're sending some potential leaders on a leadership program, and you have a leadership framework, which is your objective. The idea is that you will teach these people this leadership framework, and then they'll go back into the workplace, and having absorbed somehow this leadership framework, they will become the kind of leaders that you want.
As I say, the very big assumption in there is that by these individuals achieving these outcomes so that they can tick off the fact that they have this knowledge, which maybe you've tested through a quiz or whatever. "What is leadership objective number 3.8," or whatever. They can tell you the characteristics of that. We're assuming that learning is necessarily going to aggregate into widespread change within the organization, but of course, that won't necessarily happen because one of the things that leadership requires is the consent of the led, but those people haven't been your learners, so will those who are led, will they consent? Will they acquiesce to being led in that way? You don't know.
That's just a really, really trivial example, but the general idea behind that, and the largest idea I guess behind the book I'm writing is that, we've got a very... So, I drew a diagram in which you've got three overlapping circles. One of those is actors, so the people within your system, and when you're talking about learning, what I generally am thinking about is you've got a change domain because learning is about change, so you've got a change domain that you want to impact and there are actors within that change domain. The actors are people who can implement that change, but also people who are impacted by that change, so in the case of your leadership program, they are both the leaders and the led, but they also might be external actors. They might be clients, customers, et cetera, et cetera. All of those that are impacted by the change that you're trying to bring about.
The second circle is activities. They are things that happen within the organization, so they're the kinds of work that goes on, and other kinds of activities as well, and the third one is environment. The environment and activities, there might be some overlap between those, but generally speaking, the environment are things... The activities are things that happen within the organization or within the system, and the environment is things which are, so they might be things like your computer system or the layout of your offices, but they also might be more intangible things, like the organizational culture, so all of those things overlap each other and they make up the system that you're trying to impact.
Generally speaking, the way that traditionally learning is done within organizations is that we take a very, very small subset of actors, and we create a very, very small subset of activities, and we call that learning, but actually the change goes on within all of those three circles. In order to make change happen, you need to identify the entirety of the boundaries of the system you're trying to impact, because if you're just looking at that very small overlap between activities and actors, then you're completely ignoring in totality the environment in which it's happening. Generally speaking, learning designers don't get to look at that at all, and you're ignoring a large set of activities and actors.
Also, the fundamental idea of objectives and outcomes and so on is also flawed because learning outcomes are happening all the time. When we traditionally do learning, we kind of assume that learning doesn't happen unless we design it, but of course, it's happening all the time. Everything that everybody does within an organization, everybody they meet, every conversation they have, they will learn from that because this is what humans are. They're learning machines. Over time, if you're doing the same activities over and over again, you'll come to learn less from them, but the idea that we only learn when something is called learning means that we completely ignore the fact that everything that's happening is teaching us something.
The way that this book approaches learning is it's really a manifesto for greatly expanding the remit of the learning professional and allowing them to be more systems engineers, I suppose, rather than just dabbling around in this. Well, if we create a few quizzes and give people some stuff to read, or even some games to play, that they will necessarily achieve these objectives. Because those objectives may be impossible within the setting in which the change is supposed to be happening, as I've discovered over time. It's quite difficult to explain without the diagrams, to be honest, but I hope-
Dave Eng:
I know what you mean, yeah.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Yeah, so I guess the best way to explain it is, it is a manifesto for allowing learning professionals to expand their scope of influence, and to acknowledge the fact that learning is not something that is designed and injected, but it's something that's happening all the time, and when we want to create change or learning change within an organization, we have to evaluate quite carefully what is already happening and how we might augment the stuff we want or remove the learning that's happening that's maybe not what we want. A good example of that would be sort of organizational culture.
Again, if we go back to the leadership program. You go on this leadership program, and you're taught that one of the values that you're supposed to espouse to be a good leader within the organization is that you're supposed to be innovative and grab hold of opportunities as they come along, but if you're operating within a company culture where the unwritten rules tell you that you can't make mistakes, otherwise your job role is at risk, then nobody's going to innovate.
Dave Eng:
Right.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
That's quite a sort of common thing that company culture, unwritten company culture, is very much in... It goes against. It's in conflict with what the stated aims of an organization are, or the stated values of an organization are.
Dave Eng:
Right. Well, thank you Sarah. I appreciate the really broad overview on the book. I really didn't know much about it other than the short description you had shared beforehand, but as someone that works with different companies and organizations, and universities on teaching and learning, I feel that it would be very useful. I know that other learning designers, and instructional designers, and educators and instructors kind of get stuck in a rut sometimes with how a structure or hierarchy is presented, so I'm excited to see this book in print and everything else, but unfortunately this is our time. I wanted to go through our guest outro. Sarah, again, thanks for joining us today. So, where can people go to find out more about you, and eventually find out for when your book is launched?
Sarah Le-Fevre:
I guess the first portal call would be Ludogogy itself, so that's ludogogy.co.uk. It's a bit of a neologism, so it's "ludo" as in play, I play, ludo, and then G-O-G-Y on the end from pedagogy, androgogy and so on, or gogy, as you pronounce it the other side of the pond, .co.uk. Obviously, on there you can find articles about game space learning and gamification. There's links to the podcast episodes there, other things that go on with regard to Ludogogy. We have a monthly game club, the idea behind that, and anybody welcome. The idea behind that is we look at a different commercially available game each month and think about its structures, the experience that people have playing it, its mechanisms and so on, and how that might inform our practice for designing games or designing learning.
Also, a monthly mastermind for if people have, at games-based learning, or games design problems they want to bring to a group who will help them out, live play sessions and so on. I guess, for contacting me, the best place to look is LinkedIn, so that's just linkedin.com/in/sarahle-fevre, all one word. I guess to sort of bring that all together, probably the easiest place if you want to find out about everything that's going on, which, again, due to my ADHD, is quite a lot, Linktree, so that's just linktree/ludogogy. Links to lots of stuff there.
Dave Eng:
Thank you, Sarah. I'll be sure to include all of those links in the description or show notes-
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Cool.
Dave Eng:
... so thank you again, Sarah, for joining us.
Sarah Le-Fevre:
Thank you.
Dave Eng:
I hope you found this episode useful. If you'd like to learn more, then a great place to start is my free course on gamification. You can sign up for it at www.universityxp.com/gamification. You can also get a full transcript of this episode, including links to references, in the description or show notes. Thanks for joining us.
Again, I'm your host, Dave Eng, from Games-Based Learning by University XP. On Experience Points, we explore different ways we can learn from games, so if you like this episode, please consider commenting, sharing and subscribing. Subscribing is absolutely free, and ensures that you'll get the next episode of Experience Points delivered directly to you. I'd also love it if you took some time to rate the show.
We live to lift others with learning, so if you found this episode useful, consider sharing it with someone who could also benefit. Also, make sure to visit University XP online at www.universityxp.com. University XP is also on Twitter, also known as X, @University_XP, and on Facebook and LinkedIn as University XP. Also, feel free to email me anytime. My email address is dave@universityxp.com. Game on!
Cite this Episode
Eng, D. (Host). (2024, August 25). Sarah Le-Fevre on Play and Impactful Learning. (No. 119) [Audio podcast episode]. Experience Points. University XP. https://www.universityxp.com/podcast/119
Internal Ref: UXPWSP01O54N
References
Eng, D. (2019, August 13). Narratives, Toys, Puzzles, Games. Retrieved February 13, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/8/13/narratives-toys-puzzles-games
Eng, D. (2020, January 03). Building soft skills with games. Retrieved February 13, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/1/3/building-soft-skills-with-games
Eng, D. (2016, March 04). Game Systems. Retrieved February 13, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2016/3/4/whats-your-system
Eng, D. (2020, March 26). What is Games-Based Learning? Retrieved February 13, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/3/26/what-is-games-based-learning
Eng, D. (2020, May 14). What is a simulation? Retrieved February 13, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/5/14/what-is-a-simulation
Eng, D. (2020, September 10). What is Intrinsic Motivation? Retrieved February 13, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/9/10/what-is-intrinsic-motivation
Eng, D. (2022, September 27). What is Strategy in Gameplay?. Retrieved February 13, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/9/27/what-is-strategy-in-gameplay
Eng, D. (2016, January 21). Hard Fun. Retrieved February 13, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2016/1/21/hard-fun