Countless learning theories were developed in the last century, featuring many different approaches, encompassing stimuli & reward, emotions, socialization, timing or experience. Learning theories - some more than others - ended up mainstreamed in classrooms, being schooling widely and globally assumed as a privileged space for learning, in what is called today as "formal education".
I, as many theorists in the field, believe that the major chemistry of learning happens outside the schooling process. I believe this for many reasons, but mainly due to my own experience in school and in what the ones around me share about theirs. I believe that most of a person' learning happens "informally", throughout their random life events where learning is unintentional and unstructured.
The following model is widely spread within educators and learning theorists’ communities, purposing a relationship between different feelings and zoning them by learning potential:
![]()
Illustration adapted from Senninger, 2000.
The key-argument of the so-called “Learning Zone Model” (Senninger, 2000) is that learning happens in the “stretch zone”, somewhere in between the “comfort” and “panic” zones. If one feels too comfortable, he or she haves a null learning outcome. Furthermore, in the occasion of too stressful events (“panic zone”), one is not learning anymore, possibly developing psychological trauma.
I do agree that experiences with unfamiliarity and risk-taking are fertile territories for learning, but I don’t entirely agree that comfort means necessarily a no-learning state. I argue that the “comfort zone” produces more learning substance than many may claim. I personally learn from very comfortable situations, such as having shower, for example. Relaxing can actually be a channel for productive reflection and putting together pieces of experience, learning from it. Maybe, when in comfort, people develop learning in a more passive and protected way. Nevertheless, learning happens when we comfortably wash dishes, dine with family, go to cinema with friends, read a magazine, write a BGG post or play board games.
Having this said, board games may conduct to learning due to, at least, three different reasons. Firstly, because board games purpose and develop a unique hardcoded framework, usually created by other(s), where the player adapts in order to achieve his or her goal. Taking the Learning Zone Model as reference, the adaptation process may actually include incursions into the “stretch zone”, and certainly encompass a learning process. These hardcoded features include unique rules, victory conditions or exclusive terminology. For example, playing a LCG like Android: Netrunner, requires from debuting players the ability to combine cards that still have very abstract effects (e.g. “trace”, “net damage” or “tags”), while dealing with a fully asymmetric opponent (Corporation vs. Runner). Besides learning to play the game and strategies per se, the learning process includes the development of – not necessarily social – abilities, such as tolerance to complexity or assimilation of information.
![]()
Android: Netrunner.
Secondly, when not playing solo, board games provide specific social interaction situations in situ between at least two persons. This contextualized interaction produces a particular positionality for each of the players, which experience emotions such as joy, frustration, excitement or even anger. Considering that this interaction experience is always different (even if players and board games don’t vary), there’s a continuous potential for some kind of “situated learning” (Vincini, P., 2003), namely by developing social skills. For example, when playing a cooperative board game such as T.I.M.E Stories, the players face the challenge of interdependency on taking decisions. Each story is unique and, in principle, is played only once in players’ lifetime, resulting in, generally, highly motivated players, desiring to progress and reach the story’s end. As each story unfolds, players find themselves in the (particularly contextualized) social situation that they need to efficiently communicate in order to progress. Through that process, they develop their skills to dialogue, to listen, to accommodate ambiguity and different opinions, to formulate arguments, to compromise or to build up consensus. Due to the ability to “generalize” (Kolb. D. & Fry, R., 1975) these skills, people apply them in similar situations beyond the board gaming context. In resume, the social skills developed through board gaming, also function as applied social skills in society in general.
![]()
T.I.M.E Stories.
Thirdly, board games purpose particular mechanics and themes, representing the world in a certain way. Sometimes this representation attempts to simulate reality, other times it purposes a totally alternate world, other times it is something in between. Whatever is the representation purposed by games – and whether how “alternative”, “constructed”, “fantastic” or “imaginary” they are – it certainly suggests a dynamics of progress, stimuli and reward. Through strategizing within a world representation, players achieve a ‘reward’, such as ‘winning the game’. This logics of rewarding foster behaviour, in and outside of game boarding. The social order purposed by games, foster social behaviour, sometimes naturalizing human features so deep as feelings, identity or ideology.
Board games makes us think, but also – through naturalization – they can block us of reflecting. Bourdieu, describes as ‘habitus’ (1995) the practical agency of people, reproducing what’s around them. These social models can be softly coded in our socialization processes – for example, through discourse (Foucault, 1972) – featuring more or less normativity, or more or less visibility. How “fast food” did became an important part of the diet of people living in urban areas? How a mobile phone did became a “basic utility”? How sharing our intimate life in social networks did became an accepted socialization routine? Societies are essentially structured from what is naturalized in them (‘habitus’), even if this structure renders as not fully coherent with discoursed social values (e.g. ‘peace’ discourse vs. waging war, ‘social inclusion’ discourse vs. social segregation practices, discourse of ‘democracy’ vs. authoritarian policies). The process of naturalization contributes to the discouragement of reflection about what ends up soft-coded in the ‘habitus’. This means that the ‘habituated’ mind is conditioned on its critical impetus, reducing the individual full-awareness, and globally contributing to the formation of a status quo.
Bringing it down to a concrete example, Monopoly is a highly debated board game, regarding the social model it ended up purposing: neoliberal, competitive, privileged, unequal, extractive or pro-accumulation. I argue that the celebration of a ‘victory’ in a game such as Monopoly simultaneously corresponds to the naturalization of the capitalist social model it purposes, instead of many possible others. One just needs to look around to actually see features like: social and economic persistent inequality, such as between the Global North and the Global South; valorisation of competition in all kinds of social structural spaces such as schools or corporations; extractive behaviour, such as from decision makers or multinational companies, at the extent of collapsing entire States. Of course, my point is not the one of western socio-economic models coming from Monopoly… But I would not be surprised if the opposite is demonstrated. I rather argue that, as we play games that necessarily represent (and naturalize) reality in a certain way, we passively assimilate – habituate – a suggested social conduct – we reproduce behaviour which we observe (Bandura, 1977) while we play. Anyhow, Monopoly stills pacing the extraordinary commercial success since the 1930’s, being massively played while capitalism seems to be solidly anchored in the western societies and beyond.
![]()
![]()
Monopoly & Pandemic.
Board games can feature endless social models different from the one purposed by Monopoly. For example, Pandemic sets a common goal only reachable through players’ cooperation. Having different abilities, players work together to discover cures for diseases spreading in the world. While “saving the world” can be a debatable rhetoric, Pandemic purposes non-individualist social model, where players learn more about cooperating than they learn about competing. The game also encourages the valuing of diversity, since a combination of the different players’ abilities can have a very strong strategical impact in reaching success. I argue that celebrating a victory in Pandemic means also to celebrate values such as diversity, cooperation and common good. This is not exactly what happens when playing Monopoly.
A possible synthesis of the above described board gaming learning sources can be the following model.
![]()
Illustration: author source.
Board games usually signify access to comfort, and protected spaces, sometimes even an escape to ‘broken reality’ (McGonigal, 2011). Nevertheless, a combination of these three dimensions results in a situation where, even in the comfort of board gaming, one further develops his or her understanding of society. Rancière defends that the acquisition of knowledge also means the acquisition of some sort of ‘ignorance’ (Rancière, 1991), maybe a plausible question from this ground could be how board games relate with knowledge and ignorance of society. Maybe another post about this in the future. Meanwhile, I stand for: we play, therefore we learn.
References:
Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bourdieu, P. (1995) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.
Kolb. D. A. and Fry, R. (1975) Toward an applied theory of experiential learning.
McGonigal, J. (2011) Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. New York: Penguin.
Rancière, J. (1991). The Ignorant Schoolmaster - Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Senninger, T. (2000) Abenteuer leiten – in Abenteuern lernen (Facilitating adventures – learning in adventures). Münster: Ökotopia Verlag.
Vincini, P. (2003) "The nature of situated learning." Innovations in Learning.
I, as many theorists in the field, believe that the major chemistry of learning happens outside the schooling process. I believe this for many reasons, but mainly due to my own experience in school and in what the ones around me share about theirs. I believe that most of a person' learning happens "informally", throughout their random life events where learning is unintentional and unstructured.
The following model is widely spread within educators and learning theorists’ communities, purposing a relationship between different feelings and zoning them by learning potential:
Illustration adapted from Senninger, 2000.
The key-argument of the so-called “Learning Zone Model” (Senninger, 2000) is that learning happens in the “stretch zone”, somewhere in between the “comfort” and “panic” zones. If one feels too comfortable, he or she haves a null learning outcome. Furthermore, in the occasion of too stressful events (“panic zone”), one is not learning anymore, possibly developing psychological trauma.
I do agree that experiences with unfamiliarity and risk-taking are fertile territories for learning, but I don’t entirely agree that comfort means necessarily a no-learning state. I argue that the “comfort zone” produces more learning substance than many may claim. I personally learn from very comfortable situations, such as having shower, for example. Relaxing can actually be a channel for productive reflection and putting together pieces of experience, learning from it. Maybe, when in comfort, people develop learning in a more passive and protected way. Nevertheless, learning happens when we comfortably wash dishes, dine with family, go to cinema with friends, read a magazine, write a BGG post or play board games.
Having this said, board games may conduct to learning due to, at least, three different reasons. Firstly, because board games purpose and develop a unique hardcoded framework, usually created by other(s), where the player adapts in order to achieve his or her goal. Taking the Learning Zone Model as reference, the adaptation process may actually include incursions into the “stretch zone”, and certainly encompass a learning process. These hardcoded features include unique rules, victory conditions or exclusive terminology. For example, playing a LCG like Android: Netrunner, requires from debuting players the ability to combine cards that still have very abstract effects (e.g. “trace”, “net damage” or “tags”), while dealing with a fully asymmetric opponent (Corporation vs. Runner). Besides learning to play the game and strategies per se, the learning process includes the development of – not necessarily social – abilities, such as tolerance to complexity or assimilation of information.
Android: Netrunner.
Secondly, when not playing solo, board games provide specific social interaction situations in situ between at least two persons. This contextualized interaction produces a particular positionality for each of the players, which experience emotions such as joy, frustration, excitement or even anger. Considering that this interaction experience is always different (even if players and board games don’t vary), there’s a continuous potential for some kind of “situated learning” (Vincini, P., 2003), namely by developing social skills. For example, when playing a cooperative board game such as T.I.M.E Stories, the players face the challenge of interdependency on taking decisions. Each story is unique and, in principle, is played only once in players’ lifetime, resulting in, generally, highly motivated players, desiring to progress and reach the story’s end. As each story unfolds, players find themselves in the (particularly contextualized) social situation that they need to efficiently communicate in order to progress. Through that process, they develop their skills to dialogue, to listen, to accommodate ambiguity and different opinions, to formulate arguments, to compromise or to build up consensus. Due to the ability to “generalize” (Kolb. D. & Fry, R., 1975) these skills, people apply them in similar situations beyond the board gaming context. In resume, the social skills developed through board gaming, also function as applied social skills in society in general.
T.I.M.E Stories.
Thirdly, board games purpose particular mechanics and themes, representing the world in a certain way. Sometimes this representation attempts to simulate reality, other times it purposes a totally alternate world, other times it is something in between. Whatever is the representation purposed by games – and whether how “alternative”, “constructed”, “fantastic” or “imaginary” they are – it certainly suggests a dynamics of progress, stimuli and reward. Through strategizing within a world representation, players achieve a ‘reward’, such as ‘winning the game’. This logics of rewarding foster behaviour, in and outside of game boarding. The social order purposed by games, foster social behaviour, sometimes naturalizing human features so deep as feelings, identity or ideology.
Board games makes us think, but also – through naturalization – they can block us of reflecting. Bourdieu, describes as ‘habitus’ (1995) the practical agency of people, reproducing what’s around them. These social models can be softly coded in our socialization processes – for example, through discourse (Foucault, 1972) – featuring more or less normativity, or more or less visibility. How “fast food” did became an important part of the diet of people living in urban areas? How a mobile phone did became a “basic utility”? How sharing our intimate life in social networks did became an accepted socialization routine? Societies are essentially structured from what is naturalized in them (‘habitus’), even if this structure renders as not fully coherent with discoursed social values (e.g. ‘peace’ discourse vs. waging war, ‘social inclusion’ discourse vs. social segregation practices, discourse of ‘democracy’ vs. authoritarian policies). The process of naturalization contributes to the discouragement of reflection about what ends up soft-coded in the ‘habitus’. This means that the ‘habituated’ mind is conditioned on its critical impetus, reducing the individual full-awareness, and globally contributing to the formation of a status quo.
Bringing it down to a concrete example, Monopoly is a highly debated board game, regarding the social model it ended up purposing: neoliberal, competitive, privileged, unequal, extractive or pro-accumulation. I argue that the celebration of a ‘victory’ in a game such as Monopoly simultaneously corresponds to the naturalization of the capitalist social model it purposes, instead of many possible others. One just needs to look around to actually see features like: social and economic persistent inequality, such as between the Global North and the Global South; valorisation of competition in all kinds of social structural spaces such as schools or corporations; extractive behaviour, such as from decision makers or multinational companies, at the extent of collapsing entire States. Of course, my point is not the one of western socio-economic models coming from Monopoly… But I would not be surprised if the opposite is demonstrated. I rather argue that, as we play games that necessarily represent (and naturalize) reality in a certain way, we passively assimilate – habituate – a suggested social conduct – we reproduce behaviour which we observe (Bandura, 1977) while we play. Anyhow, Monopoly stills pacing the extraordinary commercial success since the 1930’s, being massively played while capitalism seems to be solidly anchored in the western societies and beyond.
Monopoly & Pandemic.
Board games can feature endless social models different from the one purposed by Monopoly. For example, Pandemic sets a common goal only reachable through players’ cooperation. Having different abilities, players work together to discover cures for diseases spreading in the world. While “saving the world” can be a debatable rhetoric, Pandemic purposes non-individualist social model, where players learn more about cooperating than they learn about competing. The game also encourages the valuing of diversity, since a combination of the different players’ abilities can have a very strong strategical impact in reaching success. I argue that celebrating a victory in Pandemic means also to celebrate values such as diversity, cooperation and common good. This is not exactly what happens when playing Monopoly.
A possible synthesis of the above described board gaming learning sources can be the following model.
Illustration: author source.
Board games usually signify access to comfort, and protected spaces, sometimes even an escape to ‘broken reality’ (McGonigal, 2011). Nevertheless, a combination of these three dimensions results in a situation where, even in the comfort of board gaming, one further develops his or her understanding of society. Rancière defends that the acquisition of knowledge also means the acquisition of some sort of ‘ignorance’ (Rancière, 1991), maybe a plausible question from this ground could be how board games relate with knowledge and ignorance of society. Maybe another post about this in the future. Meanwhile, I stand for: we play, therefore we learn.
References:
Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bourdieu, P. (1995) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.
Kolb. D. A. and Fry, R. (1975) Toward an applied theory of experiential learning.
McGonigal, J. (2011) Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. New York: Penguin.
Rancière, J. (1991). The Ignorant Schoolmaster - Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Senninger, T. (2000) Abenteuer leiten – in Abenteuern lernen (Facilitating adventures – learning in adventures). Münster: Ökotopia Verlag.
Vincini, P. (2003) "The nature of situated learning." Innovations in Learning.