For over a decade, educational theorists have been promoting the idea of using video games for education under research headings such as “serious games” or “edutainment.” After all, if kids are going to spend endless hours playing video games, they should get some value out of them so that the time isn’t wasted. And if education could be made more like a video game, maybe kids would study more. It is a compelling argument and much progress has been made; however, the pace of pedagogical research has struggled to keep up with the rapidly evolving video game technology. The authors of this book wish to take that idea a step further, focusing not just on playing games for educational value, but on designing games in a collaborative fashion and then playing them as well to acquire knowledge through the whole process. This new stage and the arguments behind it are also compelling.

Following the introduction, which sets the stage for collaborative constructive learning, there are chapters on learning how to program using games, collaborative learning through game design, cultural aspects of game design brought to light through the transparency of collaborative efforts, and some discussion of emerging tools. It is, in fact, a snapshot of emerging ideas and technologies, focusing on the present state with nods toward the past and the future.

Unfortunately, this book is not for everyone. Here are a couple of sentences from the introduction to illustrate why. The authors state:

Connected gaming realizes computational participation, and illustrates what it means to socialize and produce in the twenty-first century, resulting in better learning opportunities and, by extension, better teaching opportunities. Building on constructionist theory, the personal engagement in making and playing games does not happen in a vacuum but rather very much in a social context. (p. 13)

If you find this snippet to be thought-provoking and engaging, then you might want to check out this book. If it makes you cringe, then perhaps the book is not for you. Personally, I agree fully with the claim. But a book full of this kind of writing puts me off. Here is why: I prefer books to be clearly written so that you know what the author is saying, as opposed to books that gesture at possible interpretations. That does not mean that books of the latter type lack value. In fact, they are good for opening up possibilities; they are just not my preference. So, if you prefer a montage to a blueprint, then this book may be worth looking at.