Digital games and global technology‐training initiatives reveal a common tension: it is far easier to build technical skills and capture attention than it is to create lasting, transferable learning or to shift long-held beliefs. Decades of research on game-based learning show that when a game’s mental demands mirror those of the target task, students can often carry those skills into real-world contexts (Tobias et al., 2014). Yet the same studies note that motivation alone is not enough; without explicit alignment between game mechanics and instructional goals, transfer remains difficult. Reflecting on my instructional experience, I have introduced simulation projects to undergraduate students studying analytics and information systems. Initial excitement fills the room when they open a new platform, but the challenge is channeling that energy into the disciplined systems thinking our curriculum requires.
Equally striking is the evidence that games can improve certain thinking skills, such as visual attention and rapid task switching, while leaving other skills untouched (Tobias et al., 2014). This resonates with my work as both professor and consultant: when teaching complex analytical tools, I see how targeted practice builds speed and accuracy in well-defined tasks, but it does not automatically develop broader critical reasoning. Current research indicates that while well-designed play can enhance certain skills, broader intellectual development requires deliberate support.
Gamers themselves remind us that what players value extends beyond formal classifications of game features. While a nine-dimension framework captures key elements like rules, immersion, and challenge, reviewers also value overall impressions, comparisons to other games, and judgments of time and money well spent (Koehler et al., 2017). In my own courses, I witness a similar dynamic when students evaluate prototypes: their written feedback often weighs the experience, how intuitive or rewarding a tool feels, more than the technical features I expect them to analyze. The lesson for me as an instructional designer is clear: frameworks are essential starting points, but authentic voices expose aspects we might otherwise miss.
Finally, the TIES professional-development program for international EFL teachers shows how rapidly teachers can acquire technology skills while their underlying attitudes toward technology integration remain unchanged (Li et al., 2019). These finding echoes what I encounter when guiding faculty peers in adopting new instructional technologies: colleagues often master the mechanics of a platform long before they embrace a transformed pedagogy. The program’s social-constructivist design, pairing participants with mentors, using mobile tools, and building a global learning community, highlights that lasting belief change requires more than access and training; it calls for authentic relationships and ongoing dialogue.
Collectively, these studies demonstrate that digital game-based learning (DGBL) and structured international professional development such as the Technology Integration Enhancing Success (TIES) program can effectively build both technical skills and learner engagement. Evidence shows that games encourage motivation and can help strengthen specific thinking abilities when the mental processes engaged in the game align with the desired learning outcomes (Tobias et al., 2014). Similarly, the TIES program significantly improved teachers’ technology knowledge and skills, even though participants’ attitudes toward technology integration remained unchanged (Li et al., 2019). These findings highlight a key implication for instructional designers and teacher educators: sustainable changes in practice and belief require intentional design and ongoing support that go beyond initial skill development. This aligns with what I have observed when guiding students and colleagues, skills can be taught quickly but enduring pedagogical change demands continuing communities of practice and carefully planned learning experiences (Koehler et al., 2017).
References
Koehler, C., Jenson, J., & de Castell, S. (2017). A taxonomy approach to studying how gamers review games. Simulation & Gaming, 48(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878117717564
Li, L., Murnen, T., Zhou, Y., Wu, M. L., & Xiong, Y. (2019). Globalizing technology education for teachers: The dual challenge of strengthening skills and changing perceptions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 27(1), 5–27.
Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., & Wind, A. P. (2014). Game-based learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 485–503). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_38
Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2017). The effect of games and simulations on higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(22), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0062-1
VICTOR SCAVO, AIS Professor 