Gaming for Graduates

  • Matthew BarrEmail author
Part of the Digital Education and Learning book series (DEAL)


In this chapter, the key messages from the preceding chapters are summarised, the limitations of the work considered, and recommendations for future work made. The study presented here has shown that playing selected video games could develop certain graduate attributes: the skills and competencies that students are said to attain at university. Interviews with students, educators, and game developers have demonstrated links between games and established theories of learning, echoing ideas espoused by James Paul Gee. Here, these theories have been applied to the development of skills that graduates will be expected to demonstrate in the workplace. It is proposed that games should be integrated into higher education curricula where appropriate: if integrated thoughtfully, games can provide students with opportunities to develop their understanding of taught material, while simultaneously exercising a range of desirable skills. Universities should, therefore, afford video games at least the same status as sports and other such worthy pursuits. Furthermore, while the provision of ‘bolt-on’ graduate attribute training has not always proven successful, we should consider offering more formal game-based opportunities for attribute development. Finally, we must challenge the negative portrayal of video games: otherwise, they can never fulfil their considerable potential in education.


  1. Blizzard Entertainment. (2002). Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos. Blizzard Entertainment.Google Scholar
  2. Blizzard Entertainment. (2004). World of Warcraft. Blizzard Entertainment.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, J. S., & Thomas, D. (2006, April 1). You Play World of Warcraft? You’re Hired! Wired. Retrieved June 16, 2019, from
  4. Epic Games. (2017). Fortnite. Epic Games.Google Scholar
  5. Gee, J. P. (2007). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Koster, R. (2005). A Theory of Fun for Game Design (1st ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Paraglyph Press.Google Scholar
  7. Matt Makes Games. (2018). Celeste. Matt Makes Games.Google Scholar
  8. Naughty Dog. (2016). Uncharted 4. Sony Computer Entertainment.Google Scholar
  9. Nicol, D. J. (2010). The Foundation for Graduate Attributes: Developing Self-Regulation Through Self and Peer-Assessment. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  10. Squire, K. (2011). Video Games and Learning: Teaching Participatory Culture in the Digital Age. London: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
  11. The Fullbright Company. (2013). Gone Home. The Fullbright Company.Google Scholar
  12. Valve Corporation. (2011). Portal 2. Valve Corporation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Computing Science EducationUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations