With the advent of technology in academia, one of the age-old questions has been: Has all that technology facilitated learning? There seems to be a constant division between those who swear to the usefulness of computers, games, and technology in the learning process, especially with a generation that has known nothing other than the use of such in the classroom. There is the other side, which seems to indicate that learning cannot be forced upon students through the use of technology, and it may not even facilitate any learning at all.

The author has reviewed the literature on what has been researched and written about leaning and games. As a result of such research, his overarching goal is to come to some kind of conclusion as to where we are in the search for answers about the use of computer games for learning. His evidence-based method (answering the question of whether games facilitate learning) uses three approaches: the value-added technique, which tries to determine what features of a game improve learning; the cognitive consequences approach, which tries to determine what one learns from shelf games; and the media comparison method, which tries to determine if learning takes place better using games or conventional forms of teaching.

The author uses these approaches in order to gather worldwide evidence on the research that has taken place on game effectiveness. The book’s goal is to become the standard work in the field that will provide value to researchers, students of educational gaming, instruction developers, learning games developers, and those who believe that games are intended to enhance education in K through 12 classrooms, in college, in the workplace, and even for training purposes. The author is pretty ambitious, and the question becomes whether he do a good job and justice to his initial goal.

The book is well written and easy to follow. Each chapter begins with an outline and summary. It makes use of tables, graphs, pictures, and screen captures to prove points. Each chapter has a series of helpful references. One can learn a lot about games and learning from reading the materials. It is indeed a masterful piece of research.

In the final analysis, the author does not really answer the question of whether learning is facilitated by games, and he may not really have been interested in that issue. I think that the author’s concern is to place before us the host of materials on the topic so that research can move forward, since what we are lacking is evidence of learning due to the use of games. In the concluding chapter, he shows us what direction to go in terms of the future of research on game learning, but quite importantly he tells us where not to go: research that is nonscientific but more advocacy; research that uses inappropriate measures, which he calls “anything but learning” research; or research that collects data without any use for it, which he calls “let’s see what happens” research. He has lit the path. It would be interesting to see if the future generation of academics follows through with obtaining greater enlightenment on the question of whether games do have a place in facilitating/enhancing student learning.