ICGN125

  • Week 2 Reflections

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    Slapjack Dice + Liar’s Dice Reflections, Jan 14, 2026

    1) Fairness: “same information + speed” vs “hidden information + mind games”

    Student experience
    Many students compared fairness by focusing on information access and what skills were rewarded. Slapjack Dice was often described as fair because everyone sees the same two dice and success feels tied to attention, reaction time, and quick calculation. Liar’s Dice was often described as fair in a different way: more students felt they had “a chance” because probability reasoning, reading people, and bluffing could compensate for slower reflexes. A recurring tension in responses is that some students treated unpredictability as fairness (“random = fair”), while others saw randomness as reducing control and making outcomes feel less earned.

    What students learned
    Students learned that “fairness” depends on (a) the type of information available (shared vs hidden), (b) the skills rewarded (reflex, mental math, probability, social inference), and (c) whether the same players consistently benefit from the rules. Several students showed awareness that fairness is partly a perception tied to personal strengths and comfort with uncertainty.

    Alignment with course learning objectives
    This supports ICGN125 objectives around analyzing how game structure shapes experience: how elements (shared dice vs hidden dice) and mechanics (slap condition vs bidding/calling liar) produce different player judgments about fairness, skill, and control. Students demonstrated early systems thinking by linking design features to felt outcomes.

    How students could improve next time (reflections)
    Students should define what they mean by “fair” (equal information, equal opportunity, skill-rewarding, or randomness-rewarding) and then support it with one concrete moment from play (e.g., “the fastest player won repeated rounds” or “a bluff worked because…”). Reflections would also improve by adding transfer to university life (e.g., “fairness in group work: same instructions, but social confidence changes outcomes”).

    2) Attention, speed, and cognitive load in Slapjack Dice

    Student experience
    Students repeatedly described Slapjack Dice as demanding continuous focus: watching for doubles or a total of 7, tracking points, and staying ready to slap. Several noted that doubles were easier to detect than doing addition quickly, and that penalties for wrong slaps pushed them to slow down. Common behaviors observed included hesitation (checking before slapping), quick/aggressive slaps, and a shift from reckless speed to careful confirmation after losing points.

    What students learned
    Students learned how time pressure changes thinking: under speed demands, players simplify strategies (pattern spotting), prioritize speed-accuracy tradeoffs, and adjust based on feedback from point gains/losses. Many recognized that attention is a limited resource and that being constantly “ready” can produce tension even when rules are simple.

    Alignment with course learning objectives
    This aligns with objectives related to analyzing mechanics and emergent behavior: how a small ruleset can create high cognitive demand and predictable dynamics (hesitation, aggression, heightened readiness). It also supports understanding how feedback systems (penalties and rewards) shape motivation and play.

    How students could improve next time (reflections)
    Students should describe how their attention strategy changed over rounds (e.g., “I looked for doubles first” or “I waited to confirm the sum”) and include social interaction effects (did table talk distract, did an aggressive player raise pressure, did hesitation spread?). They should also connect the speed/accuracy tradeoff to everyday university contexts like timed quizzes, exams, and classroom participation.

    3) Hidden information, trust, and social inference in Liar’s Dice

    Student experience
    Liar’s Dice reflections strongly emphasized uncertainty and suspicion. Students described watching body language, “poker faces,” and patterns in bidding, especially after someone lost a die. Many noted the mood became more speculative as rounds progressed, with players changing how “honest” they were and the group paying closer attention to each claim. Reveal moments and calling “liar” often created suspense, excitement, or social tension.

    What students learned
    Students learned that hidden information produces a different skill set: social inference plus probability reasoning. They also learned that trust becomes conditional—claims are evaluated based on plausibility, speaker history, and stakes. Several reflections showed awareness that credibility management and reading group behavior can be as important as the dice results.

    Alignment with course learning objectives
    This supports course objectives around analyzing how elements (hidden dice) and mechanics (bidding, calling liar) generate social dynamics (suspicion, reputation tracking, persuasion, strategic lying). Students demonstrated understanding of interaction design: rules can directly produce predictable social behaviors.

    How students could improve next time (reflections)
    Students should include one clear example of a trust judgment (e.g., “I called liar because their bid didn’t match the odds and they hesitated”) and explain the social impact (did it escalate competition, create laughter, shift behavior?). They should also apply insights to university settings such as group projects, negotiation of roles, and deciding when to challenge information during discussions.

    4) Agency and adaptation: how penalties, fewer dice, and shifting power change strategy

    Student experience
    Many students described adapting after setbacks. In Slapjack Dice, losing points led to more careful play and more hesitation. In Liar’s Dice, losing a die was widely described as losing information and power, pushing players toward conservative bids, reduced bluffing, or more frequent “liar” calls. Several students described late-game shifts where having more dice increased confidence and control, while fewer dice increased dependence on others’ claims and raised risk sensitivity.

    What students learned
    Students learned that choices are shaped by constraints: penalties and resource loss change what feels safe and what risks are worth taking. They also learned that agency is relational—your strategy depends on the shared system state (dice left on the table) and on how other players respond to your choices.

    Alignment with course learning objectives
    This maps to objectives around systems thinking and decision-making: understanding feedback loops (loss → caution), shifting incentives over time, and how game state changes strategy. Students showed growing ability to explain how mechanics create evolving play dynamics across rounds.

    How students could improve next time (reflections)
    Students should describe a clear before/after strategy shift (early vs late rounds) and name the trigger (lost points, lost a die, a player pattern). Reflections should also transfer this thinking to real contexts: course selection, leadership roles, or group projects where time/support/trust shrink and strategy must adapt.

    5) Emotion and group mood: tension, confidence, and playfulness as outcomes of design

    Student experience
    Emotional contrasts were consistent. Slapjack Dice produced fast spikes of excitement and tension tied to constant readiness and quick wins/losses. Liar’s Dice produced longer, sustained tension tied to being watched, fear of getting caught, and uncertainty about accusing others incorrectly. Many students noted suspense and excitement at reveal moments. Others described a playful mood when bluffing was treated as humor rather than confrontation. Confidence often tracked power (more dice) and competence (comfort with bluffing or reading people).

    What students learned
    Students learned that emotion is generated by mechanics (time pressure, hidden information, public challenges, penalties) and amplified by social interaction (peer judgment, teasing, support, observation). Several reflections implicitly recognized that designers can “tune” emotion by adjusting information, pace, and consequences.

    Alignment with course learning objectives
    This aligns with objectives around reflective practice and motivation in game-based learning. Students connected mechanics to feelings and group mood, demonstrating growth in interpreting play as a designed experience rather than just entertainment.

    How students could improve next time (reflections)
    Students should connect emotions to (1) a specific rule and (2) a specific social moment. Example: “I felt stressed because everyone watched my bid and I didn’t want to look foolish,” or “the table became tense because one player’s aggressive slaps made everyone rush.” They should then apply this to university contexts such as presentations, exams, peer critique, and how social evaluation affects stress and performance.

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +
    + , ,

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

  • Week 3 Reflections

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    This summary synthesizes student reflections using the rubric standards and organizes evidence of learning into five core concepts aligned to ICGN125 course learning objectives.

    1. Understanding Games as Systems (Elements, Mechanics, Dynamics)

    Student experience

    Across reflections, students demonstrated growing awareness that games function as systems rather than isolated rules. Many noticed how simple mechanics—such as turn order, hidden information, or trading—produced complex outcomes once players interacted. Students frequently referenced unexpected alliances, betrayals, risk-taking, or passive play, showing that gameplay outcomes were shaped as much by people as by rules.

    What students learned

    Students learned that games are social systems where player behavior, communication, and emotion interact with mechanics to create emergent dynamics. They began to recognize that outcomes are rarely determined by rules alone, but by how players interpret, exploit, or resist those rules in social contexts.

    Alignment with course learning objectives

    This aligns strongly with the course objective of analyzing games through a systems lens (elements → mechanics → dynamics) and understanding how meaning emerges from play. Students demonstrated foundational systems thinking, a key goal of ICGN125.

    How students could improve next time

    Future reflections could improve by explicitly naming which social behaviors altered the system (e.g., trust, dominance, silence) and comparing those dynamics to real systems at university—such as group projects, classroom participation, or student leadership—where formal rules interact with informal social behavior in similar ways.

    2. Learning Through Experience, Trial, and Observation

    Student experience

    Students commonly described learning through observation, imitation, and trial-and-error rather than instruction. Watching other players succeed or fail, copying strategies, and adjusting behavior mid-game were recurring themes. Several students noted moments of confusion that later turned into understanding once they saw others play differently.

    What students learned

    Students learned that active engagement and peer observation are powerful learning tools. Many recognized that mistakes—both their own and others’—were not setbacks but key learning moments that improved later performance.

    Alignment with course learning objectives

    This reflects the course emphasis on experiential learning and learning-by-doing. Students demonstrated movement beyond passive consumption toward reflective engagement, which is central to game-based learning theory.

    How students could improve next time

    Reflections could be strengthened by linking learning moments more clearly to interaction with others, such as feedback, modeling, or peer pressure. Students could also connect this process to everyday university learning—labs, presentations, teamwork—where understanding often emerges through doing, failing, and revising rather than listening alone.

    3. Agency, Choice, and Consequences

    Student experience

    Many students reflected on how their decisions—risk-taking, cooperation, deception, or caution—led to immediate and visible consequences. Some expressed surprise when “good” decisions failed due to others’ actions, or when conservative play limited success.

    What students learned

    Students learned that agency in games is relational: choices matter, but their impact depends on others’ responses. This helped students understand responsibility, uncertainty, and trade-offs in decision-making within shared systems.

    Alignment with course learning objectives

    This directly supports the course objective of understanding agency and consequence in interactive systems. Students demonstrated early mastery of analyzing decision-making under uncertainty, a transferable skill beyond games.

    How students could improve next time

    Students could deepen reflections by examining how their choices affected group outcomes, not just personal success. Applying this to university life—such as course selection, group work, or leadership roles—would show stronger transfer of learning to real-world decision-making.

    4. Social Interaction, Communication, and Power

    Student experience

    Communication emerged as a dominant theme. Students described persuasion, deception, silence, timing, and peer pressure as decisive factors. Several noted how confidence, talkativeness, or social positioning influenced trust and outcomes more than strategy alone.

    What students learned

    Students learned that communication is not neutral—it shapes power, trust, and outcomes. They recognized that how something is said often matters more than what is said, especially in social deduction and negotiation games.

    Alignment with course learning objectives

    This aligns closely with learning objectives related to social dynamics, collaboration, and communication in games. Students showed awareness of how interaction design shapes behavior, a key concept in games and learning.

    How students could improve next time

    Future reflections could analyze why specific communication strategies worked or failed, considering social pressure and group norms. Students could then apply these insights to university contexts such as teamwork, presentations, negotiation, and conflict resolution.

    5. Emotion, Reflection, and Design Transfer

    Student experience

    Students frequently described emotional shifts—excitement, stress, frustration, confidence, fear, or relief—often triggered by social interaction, uncertainty, or sudden changes in game state. These emotions were closely tied to engagement and decision-making.

    What students learned

    Students learned that emotions are integral to learning and behavior, not distractions. Many recognized that tension increased focus, while frustration or boredom reduced engagement. Some implicitly identified how emotion can be intentionally designed into games.

    Alignment with course learning objectives

    This supports the course objective of reflective practice and understanding motivation in learning environments. Students demonstrated awareness of how emotional design influences engagement and learning outcomes.

    How students could improve next time

    Students could improve reflections by linking emotions more clearly to social context—for example, how peer judgment or support affected stress and confidence. They could also apply this insight to exams, presentations, and everyday university situations, explaining how understanding emotional dynamics can improve performance and learning design.

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +
    + , ,

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +