So, I apparently misread the course calendar and read/posted ahead. So last week I posted about part III instead of part II, so I’ll be writing about something in part II today.

I’m a bit torn about Benjamin Miller’s article “Metaphor, Writer’s Block, and The Legend of Zelda.” On the one hand, the metaphor is totally apt, and I can see the connections Miller is making quite easily. I’ve always thought of writing/school in terms of games, because so much of my life is bound up in game-like thinking. So, I’m totally on board in that regard. But I’m not so sure about using this metaphor in the classroom. I already get enough resistance when I try to bring in activities or projects that are games-oriented. I’ve tried using games metaphors before, and I’ve run into some issues with students not having any experience with the games I’m talking about (even games that seem totally common, like Legend of Zelda or Super Mario Bros.) A metaphor only really works when one relates something less familiar to something more familiar; it all kind of falls apart if both items are unfamiliar.

I will say, though, I totally agree with approaches to course “mechanics” and syllabus design could take a few cues from game design. I really like the idea of revisiting readings later on in the semester and having students measure the differences in how they understand it. Then again, games do a great job of making sure revisiting an area is worth the player’s while (power-ups, hidden things, progression through the game, etc). How—if we have a hard enough time getting our students to read things the first time—do we incentivize them reading the same thing once again? Any approach to syllabus crafting is difficult, but this article at least has left me a small problem to solve