I'm familiar with the research on play and I'm convinced that games are more motivating than traditional classroom lessons. Not all classroom experiences involve drudgery and coercion, however. What a sad state our school system is in that it's so commonly described this way, eh? Anyway, I used games and puzzles in my classroom when I taught high school. Kids were excited about "game day" and they'd rush to the front of the room to grab one and start playing. I got a friend of mine into it, as well, and he'd receive stipends to buy more games when administrators would come by and see what was going on in his classroom. Now I'm interested in looking a bit deeper. Let's assume that kids want to play games, that the motivation's already there. What kinds of games teach concepts better than traditional or even reform-based approaches? What do kids get out of playing these games that they don't get out of these other approaches? Are they better able to master the concepts, to develop the skills,...? Does the approach work better for some students than others? If so, which ones? When is it worth it to throw out today's lesson plan and play a game? How do you know their learning? Do they have to win the game? What about issues of winning and losing? Is the kid who's cramming for the trivia game only interested in winning? Is s/he likely to learn trivia by cramming? And what value is there in learning trivia, anyway, except that it's easy to test? If your job and your students' graduation were on the line (and this is exactly the case for educators) and the high-stakes test were to occur next week, would you be confident enough to have a game day? If some students didn't pass, could you justify the game day? -Steven