Purpose & guardrails
Standards, essential questions, disciplinary accuracy, time, safety, access, and what evidence will count.
A Shifting Schools learning design frameworkA research-informed co-design framework
Design learning students want to enter—and can demonstrate when they leave.
Build the game with your class. Use five collaborative moves to turn a curriculum question into a playable, accessible game—and students’ design decisions into evidence of learning.
Need a place to begin? Let the die choose your class’s next design conversation.
Research-informed, not a guarantee. The framework combines evidence from game-based learning, participatory design, accessibility, assessment, and iterative game design.
Review
Causal
Observational
The promise to educators
You facilitate the process.
Students shape the game.
G.A.M.E.S. does not ask teachers to arrive with a finished classroom game. It gives the class a shared structure for researching, prototyping, testing, revising, and explaining one together.
Creative decisions
Theme, rules, mechanics, roles, player experience, prototypes, and revisions supported by evidence.
Testing & judgment
Audience needs, success criteria, accessibility commitments, playtest observations, and decisions about what changes.
01A playable gameBuilt from curriculum—not added on top of it.
02A design recordResearch, prototypes, feedback, and revision choices.
03Individual evidenceA defense or transfer task that makes each learner’s thinking visible.
The class co-design board
Five moves. One game your class can defend.
Each move names what the idea means in games and learning, then divides the work into what the teacher sets, what students shape, and what the class produces together.
-
G01
Purpose before features
Human-only moveGoal
In game design The intended player experience and outcome: what players are trying to accomplish, why it matters, and what success should feel like. A design goal is broader than a win condition.
In teaching & learning The learning objective and transfer target: what learners should understand or be able to do after play—and the evidence that would demonstrate it beyond the game.
Board game field guideObjective ≠ win condition ≠ design goal+
Player objective What players are trying to accomplish during play.
Win condition The rule state that ends play or determines the result.
Design goal The kind of thinking, feeling, tension, or interaction the system is built to create.
Objective: build a high-scoring rail network. Success: points from claimed routes and completed tickets. Design lesson: “Build trains” is the theme; collecting sets and committing to routes creates the strategic tension.
Objective: work together to recover four treasures and escape. Success: everyone wins or loses together. Design lesson: a shared objective and escalating loss conditions make cooperation necessary.
Checked against publisher materials, official rules, and Wikipedia. Design lessons are our interpretation of the verified rules.
Research note
Reviews find recurring phases—explore, design, develop, assess—but no universal recipe. Define the player, context, and intended outcome first.
Make it together
Shared move 01Teacher sets The standards, essential question, non-negotiable content, boundaries, and what evidence will count.
Students shape What players should try to accomplish, experience, and understand—and what the game will not attempt.
You produce A one-sentence design brief connecting the player goal, learning goal, and transfer target.
Maxim & Arnedo-Moreno, 2025
-
A02
Design with people, not for them
Human-only moveAudience
In game design The real players: their motivations, contexts, abilities, prior experience, access needs, and reasons to begin—or stop—playing.
In teaching & learning The actual learners: their prior knowledge, language, identities, variability, interests, and supports. Design with students instead of inventing an “average” learner.
Board game field guideRead the assumptions inside the box+
Teams interpret one-word clues that connect several words. The design assumes shared vocabulary, cultural associations, comfort speaking in a group, and enough players for teams. Ask whose knowledge helps—and whose may be treated as “wrong.”
Tile placement makes the central action visible and relatively low-text once rules are known. Yet icon size, color distinctions, spatial planning, fine-motor demands, and competitive blocking still shape who can participate comfortably.
Checked against publisher materials, official rules, and Wikipedia. Accessibility observations are design prompts, not claims about every player.
Research note
Co-design can surface assumptions, but participation must be meaningful, accessible, and supported with time, comprehension, and confidence.
Make it together
Shared move 02Teacher sets Access requirements, classroom realities, safeguarding, time, materials, and whose perspectives must be respected.
Students shape Who will play, what may invite or exclude them, and how the team will gather feedback from real players.
You produce A player profile, classroom constraints list, and a small set of accessibility commitments.
Saiger et al., 2023 · Hassan, 2024
-
M03
Make the thinking playable
Student-choice AI · optionalMechanic
In game design The repeatable player action shaped by rules and feedback—the core loop that creates the play, such as choose, trade, build, compare, or negotiate.
In teaching & learning The thinking learners repeatedly practise. The loop should require the target cognition—retrieve, interpret, argue, model, revise—not simply add points to content.
Board game field guide10 mechanics to borrow, combine, and test+
Mechanic ≠ themeExplore the broader mechanics overview ↗A mechanic is what players repeatedly do and how the system responds. Start with one core mechanic; add a second only when it strengthens the learning.
Set collection + route claiming Players: collect matching cards, spend sets to claim links, and connect destinations.
Learning move: classify evidence, sequence dependencies, and optimize a plan under scarcity.
Tile-laying + spatial building Players: place one tile under adjacency rules, then optionally commit a limited follower.
Learning move: build a shared model and reason about how one addition changes the whole system.
Clue-giving + deduction Players: compress relationships into one clue; teammates infer which words belong together.
Learning move: categorize, form analogies, justify interpretations, and revise after feedback.
Deck-building Players: acquire cards into a personal deck; future draws reflect earlier choices.
Learning move: assemble a strategy, test combinations, and trace cumulative cause and effect.
Action points + cooperation Players: allocate four actions, coordinate distinct roles, and respond to an escalating shared system.
Learning move: prioritize under constraints, divide expertise, and model system-level consequences.
Card drafting + set collection Players: choose one card, pass the rest, and build combinations that score differently.
Learning move: compare options, group examples by criteria, and adapt as information changes.
Trading + resource management Players: acquire, negotiate, trade, and spend resources to expand a network.
Learning move: negotiate with evidence, weigh opportunity cost, and allocate limited resources.
Engine-building Players: add cards whose abilities strengthen and combine with future habitat actions.
Learning move: construct causal chains and evaluate compounding effects across a system.
Push-your-luck + bag-building Players: draw ingredients, choose when to stop, then buy pieces that alter future draws.
Learning move: reason about probability, risk and reward, then revise the system itself.
Hanabi reverses private information: players see everyone else’s cards but not their own. A turn is giving a tightly constrained clue, playing from limited knowledge, or discarding to recover a clue token. The missing information is not decoration—it is the system that creates shared memory, trust, inference, and risk.
Ten examples checked against publisher materials, official rules, and Wikipedia. “Learning move” suggestions are design hypotheses for a class to prototype and test—not guaranteed outcomes.
Research note
Points, stories, and feedback are common, but studies rarely isolate which element caused an outcome. Treat mechanics as hypotheses to test.
Make it together
Shared move 03Teacher sets The target thinking, reliable content and sources, available materials, and the disciplinary limits of the model.
Students shape The rules, choices, actions, consequences, and feedback that make players use that thinking.
You produce A paper prototype and a visible loop: action → thinking → feedback → strategy revised.
Viudes-Carbonell et al., 2021 · Aster et al., 2024
-
E04
Create conditions for meaningful participation
Student-choice AI · after playtestingEngagement
In game design The conditions that sustain willing participation: meaningful choice, clear feedback, balanced challenge, curiosity, belonging, and a reason to continue.
In teaching & learning Productive investment in learning, not just fun or time-on-task. Use relevance, agency, feedback, social connection, and achievable challenge to support deeper effort.
Meaningful choiceUseful feedbackBalanced challengeConnectionBoard game field guideEngagement comes from conditions, not points+
Players face cooperative missions, but communication about cards is sharply constrained. The restriction creates inference, interdependence, and rising mastery as missions vary—not merely a reward layer.
The island visibly sinks while players coordinate distinct roles toward one shared escape. Urgency comes from a changing system, consequential choices, and mutual dependence.
Checked against publisher materials, official rules, and Wikipedia. Engagement claims describe design hypotheses to test with real players.
Research note
Autonomy, challenge, connection, stimulation, and displacement are candidate mechanisms, not guaranteed levers. Effects vary by person and context.
Make it together
Shared move 04Teacher sets Participation options, humane time limits, low-stakes feedback, and alternatives to public competition.
Students shape Where players have meaningful choice, useful challenge, visible progress, curiosity, and connection.
You produce A playtest plan naming what the class will watch, ask, and change—not just whether players had fun.
Ballou et al., 2025 · Hazel et al., 2022
-
S05
Make learning visible
Student-choice AI · optionalShow it
In game design Evidence from playtests, observation, interviews, and analytics showing whether players understand the system and experience what the design promised.
In teaching & learning Assessment matched to the objective: student work, explanation, transfer, and delayed retention. Enjoyment can be useful feedback, but it is not evidence of learning.
The game is not the only proof. Combine the playable product with a design record, an explanation of revisions, and an individual transfer check.
Board game field guideFeedback inside play; evidence beyond play+
Each guess receives structured indicator feedback. The visible record lets a player eliminate possibilities and revise a hypothesis. The feedback is useful because it changes the next decision.
Revealed cards show whether teammates interpreted a clue as intended, but a correct guess alone cannot explain the reasoning. Listening to discussion reveals far more about the mental model.
Checked against publisher materials, official rules, and Wikipedia. A game-state signal is not automatically evidence of learning.
Research note
Meta-analysis finds different effects for cognitive, affective, and metacognitive outcomes. “Engaging” does not by itself demonstrate learning, transfer, or wellbeing.
Make it together
Shared move 05Teacher sets The learning claim, success criteria, rubric, individual check, and evidence needed to support a defensible judgment.
Students shape How they will document decisions, explain the model, respond to playtest evidence, and defend revisions.
You produce A playable game, design record, public defense, and individual task showing transfer beyond the game.
Barz et al., 2024 · Egami et al., 2024
2 no-AI
The Student-Choice AI Rule
Two human-only moves.
Three choice points.
Goal stays human-only because people decide what is worth learning and what responsible success means. Audience stays human-only because lived experience, access, identity, consent, and belonging must come from people. At Mechanic, Engagement, and Show it, students choose AI or an equally valued no-AI pathway—and record why. Choosing no AI is always a valid AI-literacy decision.
G · Human-only purposeA · Human-only voicesM · Student choosesE · Choose after real playS · Student choosesHumans verify every move
A five-session starting point
Run a class game-design sprint.
Start with paper, markers, index cards, dice, and a curriculum question. A short sprint lets students experience the full design cycle before anyone invests in polished production.
- 1Frame the challengeG + S
Share the learning goal and evidence criteria. As a class, define the player, purpose, boundaries, and one-sentence design brief.
- 2Research & imagineA
Build shared background knowledge. Student teams identify audience needs and sketch several ways the content could become player decisions.
- 3Prototype the loopM · Choice
Teams choose AI or no AI, make rough versions, compare options, and document why their pathway fit this design move.
- 4Playtest & reviseE · Choice
Real players think aloud. Teams may then choose AI to organize de-identified notes, but students verify every pattern against the original human evidence.
- 5Share & defendS · Choice
Teams choose a peer or AI skeptical reviewer, verify the critique, explain revisions, and independently apply the learning without AI.
Student design roles
Content researcherSystems designerAccess advocatePrototype makerPlaytest observerEvidence keeper
Ready-to-use student workspace
Open the class game-design kit.
Five move cards, two human-only moves, three student-choice AI decisions, a player profile, prototype canvas, playtest record, AI decision log, and independent transfer check—in a clean printable format.
Design briefPlayer profilePrototype canvasAI Decision CardPlaytest recordAI Audit LogNo-AI transfer
Worked example · Grade 9 ELA
The class turns character analysis into a branching game.
The teacher brings the texts, learning target, evidence criteria, and access guardrails. Students co-design a short branching narrative in Twine; every branch must remain true to a studied character and every design choice needs textual evidence.
Outcome
Character development, textual evidence, and narrative craft—not “make a game.”
Co-design
Ask who plays, who does not, and who needs dictation, translation, or lower reading load.
Core loop
Choose → justify with evidence → peer playtest → revise. Prototype one branch on paper first.
Levers
Meaningful character choice, tiered branch counts, visible progress, and social playtesting.
Proof
Grade the evidence log, one full narrative path, and a transfer-focused reflective memo—not polish.
Sample unit 02 · Grade 10 humanities
Culture, Contact & Power
How do encounters between cultures reshape worldview, power, and the stories later told?
Why this belongs
A real overlap in the Spokane curriculum.
Spokane Public Schools describes English 10 as an exploration of culture and worldview using textual evidence, research, collaborative digital presentation, and analysis of documentary objectivity. Its World History course begins in 1450, examines cultural interaction and political, economic, and social systems, and explicitly develops point-of-view, bias, chronology, and analytical-writing skills.
Goal
Develop and defend a claim about how one cross-cultural encounter changed worldview and power. Explain change and continuity, multiple causes, and how perspective shapes interpretation.
Audience
Design for classmates with varied reading, language, sensory, and executive-function needs. Treat people in the historical record as humans—not costumes, roles to perform, or game resources.
Mechanic
Source → perspective → claim → challenge → revise. Each turn adds a sourced event to a shared map or timeline, then another player tests the claim with corroborating or conflicting evidence.
Engagement
Offer meaningful case choice, visible progress, collaborative roles, and low-stakes revision. Reward stronger reasoning—not domination, speed, conquest, or collecting people and cultures.
Show it
Assess the evidence dossier, historical claim and counterclaim, source attributions, playable model, oral defense, and an individual transfer memo using a new case students did not design.
Teacher-curated case packs
Choose one encounter. Include voices on more than one side of power.
- Indian Ocean trade: coastal states, merchants, navigators, and Portuguese entry.
- Mexica–Spanish encounter: diplomacy, alliance, conquest, disease, and competing accounts.
- Atlantic systems: West African polities, European trade, forced migration, and resistance.
- Manila and global silver: American mines, Asian markets, labor, environment, and empire.
Use short, contextualized primary sources alongside current scholarship. Never ask students to role-play enslavement, conquest, forced migration, or cultural trauma.
Five instructional rounds
From question to public defense.
- 1Frame · Days 1–2
Define culture, worldview, contact, and power. Compare two accounts of one event and generate an inquiry question.
- 2Investigate · Days 3–5
Build a source ledger, evaluate provenance and bias, and map chronology, movement, systems, and cause.
- 3Argue · Days 6–8
Draft a claim, counterclaim, and evidence chain. Storyboard the board before producing polished assets.
- 4Playtest · Days 9–11
Test historical accuracy, fairness, accessibility, and whether the mechanic actually requires reasoning.
- 5Defend & transfer · Days 12–15
Present to peers, revise from critique, and independently apply the reasoning process to an unfamiliar source pair.
Standards alignment
Every code points to observable student work.
ELA uses OSPI’s March 2026 initial-adoption grade 9–10 codes. Social studies uses Washington’s 2019 standards. Confirm district pacing and any final ELA crosswalk before classroom adoption.
| Student evidence | WA ELA 2026 | WA Social Studies |
|---|---|---|
| Source ledger: origin, expertise, perspective, corroboration, and fair-use attribution | ELA.9–10.RML.1; ELA.9–10.RML.4; ELA.9–10.RML.5; ELA.9–10.W.3c/i | SSS1.9-12.4; SSS2.9-12.2; SSS2.9-12.3; SSS4.9-12.4 |
| Map and timeline explaining expansion, encounter, movement, and change | ELA.9–10.R.1; ELA.9–10.R.5 | G1.9-10.3; G1.9-10.4; G3.9-10.1; G3.9-10.2; H1.9-10.1; H1.9-10.2 |
| Historical claim, counterclaim, causal chain, and revision after critique | ELA.9–10.W.1c/d; ELA.9–10.W.3e–g; ELA.9–10.W.5 | H2.9-10.2; H2.9-10.4; H3.9-10.1; H3.9-10.2; H3.9-10.3; SSS4.9-12.2 |
| Playable model and oral defense using visuals, evidence, and source attribution | ELA.9–10.SLDF.1; ELA.9–10.SLDF.2; ELA.9–10.SLDF.3c/d | SSS3.9-12.1; SSS4.9-12.3 |
| Independent transfer memo using an unfamiliar source pair | ELA.9–10.R.5; ELA.9–10.R.7; ELA.9–10.W.3f/g | H4.9-10.1; SSS1.9-12.1; SSS1.9-12.2 |
16-point proof
A compact, standards-linked rubric.
Score each dimension from 1–4. Keep product polish separate from disciplinary understanding.
Historical reasoning
Accurate chronology; multiple, complex causes; change and continuity; historical context.
Evidence & sourcing
Relevant, credible, corroborated sources; visible provenance; no invented quotation or citation.
Perspective & argument
Precise claim, counterclaim, bias analysis, and more than one historically grounded perspective.
Design & access
The mechanic requires reasoning; instructions work by text and speech; color is never the only cue.
Frequently asked questions
What is this, exactly?
Short answers for educators deciding whether, where, and how to use G.A.M.E.S. with a class.
What is G.A.M.E.S.?+
A five-move co-design framework that helps an educator and students turn a curriculum question into a playable game, a documented design process, and evidence of learning.
What does it give an educator?+
A planning structure, shared design vocabulary, mechanic examples, a short sprint, two classroom models, a student design kit, assessment guidance, and a printable field guide.
Is this a finished game or lesson plan?+
No. It is a process for designing with a class. The examples show what the process can produce, but teachers and students choose the content, audience, mechanic, and final form.
Who actually designs the game?+
The teacher holds the learning purpose, standards, accuracy, access, safety, time, and evidence criteria. Students shape the theme, rules, mechanics, roles, prototypes, and revisions. The class playtests and judges together.
Do I need game-design experience?+
No. Begin with one learning goal, one repeatable player action, and a paper prototype. The field guide explains common mechanics through familiar board games and translates each one into possible learning moves.
Is this just gamification?+
No. G.A.M.E.S. does not begin with points, badges, prizes, or competition. It asks the class to make the target thinking part of what players repeatedly do, notice, decide, and revise.
Does it require students to use AI?+
No. Goal and Audience prohibit AI. In Mechanic, Engagement, and Show it, students may choose an approved AI tool or an equally valued no-AI pathway—including choosing no AI at all. They record why the choice fit the task.
Which moves prohibit AI, and why?+
Goal is human-only because people decide what is worth learning and what responsible success means. Audience is human-only because classmates—not a model—provide lived experience and judgments about access, identity, consent, and belonging.
How long does it take?+
Use the five-session sprint for a first prototype, expand it into a multi-week unit, or use one move to improve an existing project. The framework is a shared vocabulary, not a rigid calendar.
How is learning assessed?+
Use three forms of evidence: the playable model, the design record showing research and revisions, and an individual defense or transfer task. Product polish and popularity should not substitute for disciplinary understanding.
Is it standards aligned?+
The framework can be aligned to any learning standards because Goal and Show it begin with the learning target and evidence. The included Grade 9 ELA and Grade 10 Spokane humanities examples map to Washington standards; teachers should confirm local requirements.
What do we need to begin?+
A curriculum question, clear evidence criteria, paper, markers, index cards, and simple components such as tokens or dice. Digital production is optional; prototype the thinking before polishing the materials.
Build it with your class
Goal → Audience → Mechanic → Engagement → Show it
The teacher holds purpose and guardrails. Students shape the game. The class tests and revises together. Individual evidence shows what each learner can carry beyond the game.