The conversation about the Gee reading concerning assessment has been on my mind. Although I was good in school and never freaked out on exams, I never liked having teachers check up on my progress in school. I liked the anonymity (or so it felt to me) of figuring it out on my own. I did not like being judged and I did not like being wrong. I wonder if that is the difference in why gamers (or at least some of them) don't mind the immediate assessment. The game does not judge them. They can also plug away at it in private until they become 'experts'. No one knows how many times they 'died' learning the game. I may be wrong about that because don't know how the community of gamers interact about those things. The nearest thing (and I date myself horribly here) that I can relate to was learning to play pinball games. There was incentive to get good quickly because each game cost money. But I think it took like 100 games to learn the basics for a novice. Those skills were transferable. But that was a lot of time and money (to me). I learned a lot from watching others but I learned a lot more when no one was watching and I could plug away and apply what I saw modeled. That is a long way to say that I am not sure how to transfer the positive attitude to instant assessment to the classroom. I think it might be possible to do it but my skepticism is growing. There is something about the game environment that seems different from the classroom and it is not apparent to me how to apply the lessons from the one to the other. Initially I was like -- yeah we have got to try this. Now I am thinking, I don't see how to do it. I am open to suggestions and will gladly imitate successful models. Any thoughts?