Capstone Math and Board Games Luc-Amrit Chauny

MATH AND BOARD GAMES
Math and Board Games

Luc-Amrit Chauny
MATL Capstone Research Project
December 2015
2
Math and Board Games
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.
Situating the researcher ............................................................................................. 5
2.
Literature Review...................................................................................................... 6
Method ............................................................................................................................ 6
The rise of designer games ............................................................................................. 7
The enjoyment of playing modern board games............................................................. 9
Educational games, or off-the-shelf commercial games? ............................................. 11
Modern board games in early childhood ...................................................................... 13
Designer board games in secondary education ............................................................. 14
3.
Mathematical Analysis of Board Games ................................................................ 17

Methodology ................................................................................................................. 17
Games Analysis ............................................................................................................ 19
4.
Findings and Implications for teacher practice ....................................................... 43

Main findings ................................................................................................................ 43
Implication for teacher practice .................................................................................... 44
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 45
References ......................................................................................................................... 47
Annex ................................................................................................................................ 51
3
Introduction
Like many of my fellow math teachers, I enter the field of education with a long history
of considering mathematics worthy of my time and interest; in fact, sometimes, I find math
outrageously fun and beautiful. I am also convinced that some degree of affective investment,
enjoyment, and gratification is necessary for learning and, more importantly, retaining
information. Unfortunately, for a majority of students, formal math is often associated with
negative feelings. However, outside of the classroom, people voluntarily pursue math in the form
of games. In particular, in the last twenty years, a hobbyist subculture around board games1 has
been steadily developing, almost concurrently with the rise of video games (Woods, 2012).
Although its decline seemed inevitable due to the omnipresence of digital media, the board game
industry has instead seen dramatic growth in recent years (Wingfield, 2014).
From my perspective, this represents an opportunity to connect with students by
concretely showing them that math offers one of the richest playgrounds. This inspired me to
explore the potential use of modern board games in my math classroom. There are three possible
approaches to implementing board games in the classroom: (1) using educational games,
(2) having students design games and (3) using off-the-shelf commercial games (van Eck, 2006).
In this study, I will focus primarily on this last approach, as I argue that it has the biggest
potential to provide an authentic and fun experience within a complex mathematical
environment, while requiring a less extensive time commitment than design.
I am a strong believer in teacher authenticity; as Palmer (1998) states, we teach who we
are (p.36). I have always loved to play all sorts of games, and to watch people having fun
In order to ease reading, throughout this study I will use the term board game without distinction between board
games, card games and other tabletop games.
playing. Thus, the first question that informs this research is: where does my enjoyment of board
games comes from, and how does this relate to an enjoyment of mathematics? In parallel to this,
I would like to investigate the mathematical nature of board game mechanics: in which ways do
modern board games reflect complex mathematical concepts and require logical thinking?
Finally, in light of the prior analysis, I ask myself: should the use of modern board games be
implemented in the mathematics classrooms? If so, how? One of the main outcomes of this
research project is to evaluate how desirable and realistic it is to teach mathematics using
commercial board games in a secondary math classroom.
5
1. Situating the researcher
I grew up surrounded by toys and games: building blocks, plastic dinosaurs and smurfs,
and tons of Legos. In fact, my house had an entire room dedicated to games, where my siblings
and I would spend hours playing. My mother would never miss an opportunity to purchase
second-hand games at open-air rummage sales and garage sales, even though most of them were
missing the rulebook, some key pieces, or both. It is not surprising, then, that I experienced most
of the classics at an early age: Connect four, Whos who, Monopoly, Chess, Risk, Scrabble,
Boggle, Trivial Pursuit, Clue; and a number of more obscure ones. We also loved it when our
father spent time playing cards with us. He introduced us to a game similar to Hearts that, to this
day, I still really enjoy. We would keep track of scores and graph our progression over rounds. I
dont know if the math lesson was intentional, but it sure was fun! At school, my teachers saw
early on that I had an affinity with math. Because I would finish my homework quickly, they
would often give me logic puzzles. While the rote calculations were quite boring, I anticipated
the puzzles with excitement. Despite all of this, I slowly lost interest in board games as I grew
up.
Can you guess why? The introduction of a PC and gaming consoles in my household had
a huge impact on my personal gaming development. As I discovered exciting video games, I
played fewer tabletop ones. Interestingly, though, my favorite video games were strategy games
that either had a turn-based gameplay, or were based on resource management principles: games
like Heroes of Might and Magic, Final Fantasy, and Civilization 2. As we will see later in this
study, these games had principles strikingly similar to those of modern board games.
In 2002, I was introduced to Settlers of Catan (Teuber, 1995) at a friends house. Soon
after hearing us praise the game, my parents purchased it. This began a revival of board games
for me; I cannot count the number of times I played it with my siblings. The well-balanced mix
of strategy and luck, the board that changed every time we played, and the omnipresence of
negotiation made it an instant hit. As we will see in more details in the following literature
review, the mental challenge embedded in a social situation led to great enjoyment.
Settlers of Catan remained an isolated case of a satisfying adult board game for about ten
years, until I realized, through interaction with friends and research on the internet, that the
modern board game industry was growing at a fast pace: there were now a myriad of fascinating
games to discover. I have, for the past five years or so, become a true board game hobbyist,
organizing game nights at home on a regular basis, attending specialized gaming events and
venues such as the Randolphe Pub Ludique in Montreal.
While I was working as an aerospace engineer, playing board games was purely a hobby.
Now that I am a mathematics teacher, I find myself constantly challenged to find new ways to
engage my students in authentic and exciting math activities. I would love to use the board
games I love to teach math concepts, and I am conducting this research in order to assess how
desirable and feasible it is to do so.
2. Literature Review
Method
For this literature review, I used the keywords board games, tabletop games,
eurogames and designer games to look for academic research on the type of games I am
interested in. The nuances between these keywords will be explained in the next section about
the History of modern board games. Research on video games in education, which is abundant, is
also of some insight here. However, the cultural prominence of video games can also be
detrimental to the image of board games, portraying them as something of the past. This is
unintentionally demonstrated in a study from Manusos (2013), who recommends the design of
board games as a valuable practice for students, but implies that it is only a starting platform
before transitioning to designing video games. To avoid drawing unrepresentative conclusions, I
tried to focus primarily on studies that featured board games specifically in this literature review.
I looked for the keywords math, mathematics, education, school, benefits and
cognitive to link the search to the educational value of board games. Finally, I heavily relied
on one primary source, which I found most relevant: the book Eurogames: The Design, Culture
and Play of Modern European Board Games from Stewart Woods (2012), a scholar who did his
PhD thesis on the practice of modern board games. My search for secondary sources was
extended by his bibliography.
The rise of designer games
Little research has been carried out on modern board games (Woods, 2012), despite their
immense potential regarding mathematical reasoning, and the growing interest of the public.
Although a plethora of modern board games are released each year, the existing research focuses
almost exclusively on two classics: Chess (i.e. Ferguson, 1995; Gobet, Retschitzki, & Voogt,
2004) and Monopoly (i.e. Axelrod, 2004). This would be akin to video game research being
limited exclusively to Pong, Pacman and Tetris. To explain this discrepancy, it is interesting to
trace back the history of Western board games.
In his book, Woods (2012) classifies board games into three categories: (1) Classical
games, such as Chess, which are primarily abstract positional games with perfect information2.
(2) Mass-market games such as Monopoly or Game of Life, which tend to rely heavily on luck as
a core mechanic. (3) Hobby games, like Axis and Allies (Harris, 1981), Dungeons and Dragons
(Gygax & Arneson, 1974), and Agricola (Rosenberg, 2007), which usually emphasize immersion
and strategy, and cater to a narrower section of the population: gaming enthusiasts. Hobby games
developed conjointly in North America and Europe.
North American hobby games took the form of wargames and role playing games. They
grew in popularity in the 1970s, and feature a highly developed theme and characters, direct
conflict between players, long play time and a heavy reliance on dice to decide the outcome of
actions. By contrast, the socio-cultural environment of Germany led to a different approach3. In
the 1990s, many German games were designed, sharing some fundamental common traits:
relatively simple rules and short play time (often less than an hour), indirect conflict between
players through competition over resources or victory points rather than combat, emphasis on
strategy over luck, a less developed theme existing mainly for aesthetic purposes, and a specific
acknowledgement of an individual game designer (BoardGameGeek, 2014). These new games
were quickly labeled German-type games.
In game theory, a game is of perfect information if the players know all the moves previously made by other
players, and have direct access to any information relevant to the game just by looking at the state of the board. By
contrast, a game is of imperfect information if there is luck involved (for example through the use of dice), if
players make decisions simultaneously, or if players keep some information secret (for example by holding cards in
their hands, unknown to the other players)
3
With a long history of high quality toy industry, media coverage that legitimates board gaming as a valuable family
activity, and a post WWII aversion to war themes, Germany provided a perfect environment for the development of
a new kind of hobby games.
The enthusiasm for German-type games has now crossed borders (Curry, 2009; Martens,
2012; Wingfield, 2014), spreading first across Europe, then to North America. The genre was
renamed eurogames, or designer games. Many recognize Settlers of Catan (Teuber, 1995) as the
main worldwide ambassador of designer games (Curry, 2009). Although their popularity is
growing at a fast rate, designer games are relatively recent and still somewhat confined to the
board game hobbyist subculture. This can explain the lack of academic research focused on
them, both inside and outside the context of education.
However, the characteristics of the eurogames genre, especially the relatively short
playtime and the emphasis of strategy over luck, hint at a potential use in math-centered
educational contexts. The unique blend of mathematical thinking (many examples will be given
in the analysis section of this research), enjoyment of play and social interaction makes designer
games a particularly attractive artifact for use in education. The growing popularity of designer
games among the general population (the success of the Randophe pub in Montreal illustrates
this trend) makes them relatable to students in a high-school setting.
The enjoyment of playing modern board games
Playing board games, as a subcategory of play, has long been described as being
intrinsically motivated (Huizinga, 1949), although players motivations to enter a game are
varied, as are their sources of enjoyment (Jrvinen, 2008). Players usually do not play for the
sake of an outside reward, but for the enjoyable experience that the game procures. When
successful, board games can induce a state of flow(Csikszentmihalyi, 1991): a feeling of total
immersion, energized focus, and enjoyment in an activity. Typically, a person experiencing
flow loses track of time and of their other concerns while on task. This is in stark contrast with
10
what can be often experienced in math classrooms, where many students become gradually
unengaged and bored. Bringing games into school may be a way to better engage some students.
Lazzaro (2004) describes four key factors that induce enjoyment in a game: (1) the
satisfaction derived from mastering the mental challenge of meaningful problem-solving, at
relatively low stakes; (2) the feeling of immersion in the context of the game and the pleasure of
following and participating in its narrative; (3) the changes of emotions that occur during the
play time, perception of self-improvement, and experience of flow and (4) the social aspect of
playing multiplayer games, or of sharing gaming experiences with friends.
In my opinion, the combination of these four elements has great potential in an education
setting. I am not the only one thinking this way. Gamification is a rising trend in education, and
although it mostly refers to video games as a learning medium, it doesnt have to. Kapp (2012)
defines gamification as such: Gamification is using game-based mechanics, aesthetics and game
thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve problems. His further
definition of game thinking is of great interest:
Game Thinking. This is perhaps the most important element of gamification. It is the idea of thinking about
an everyday experience like jogging or running and converting it into an activity that has elements of
competition, cooperation, exploration and storytelling.
Problem solving in board games is often mathematical in nature, providing a context to

explore complex curriculum material. Formal mathematics can seem cold, hard, emotionless and
individualistic. By contrast, the immersion and social factors of board games should increase
student engagement, providing a meaningful context in which to train their analytic skills and
interpersonal competencies, with freedom to experiment without being paralyzed by high stakes.
11
Finally, the gradual mastery of more and more complex strategy games should reinforce
students self-efficacy.
In his extensive research on designer board game hobbyists, Woods (2012) found that
social interaction is by far players primary motivation to participate in the hobby, above
strategy/mental challenge, and theme/immersion. The subculture that created around designer
games illustrates this motivation. Ensuring everybody is having fun is generally seen as much
superior to winning at all costs:
This emphasis upon process over outcome is explicitly mentioned by a number of survey respondents:
Playing to win is crucial Winning itself is wholly inconsequential. Id much prefer to come in last than
to win unchallenged. Did everyone have fun? Good, nothing else matters.[ R162] (Woods, 2012, p190)
The direct competition, found in classical abstract games such as chess, is often diffused
between multiple players, with no player elimination throughout the game. Players often
compete for the access to resources rather than positions on the board, and victory is declared
through the accumulation of victory points rather than the elimination of other players. All of
these unique traits of eurogames ensure that players can enjoy the mental challenge of
meaningful decision making, in a non-threatening environment, where their social and
intellectual selves are both valued and nurtured.
For all these reasons, I conclude that there has never been a better time to use offthe-shelf commercial board games for educational purposes.
Educational games, or off-the-shelf commercial games?
The idea of using board games in classroom environments is not new. There are three
possible approaches to implementing board games in the classroom: (1) using educational
12
games, (2) having students design games and (3) using off-the-shelf commercial games (van
Eck, 2006).
However, in secondary and higher education as well as in the corporate world,
educational games are often considered the prime approach to teaching and learning subjectmatter content. For example, Treher (2011) advocates for the use of educational games for health
workers training, repeating multiple times that games are effective when designed correctly for
learning, implying that off-the-shelf board games lack this instructional value. This bias towards
educational games is further illustrated by Ke & Grabowski (2007), who seem to equal game
based learning with the use of educational games in the classroom, omitting the options of using
off-the-shelf games, and having students design their own games. Interestingly, these authors
found that these educational games showed a positive effect on average math test. A later study
from Ke (2008), held during a math summer camp geared towards students with academic
difficulties, found contradictory results, with no significant effect on math test results or
metacognition level (although this might be due to the relatively short time span of the
experiment). The study highlighted my main criticism of educational games: the educational
part of the game often destroys the main motivation people spontaneously engage in games, as is
illustrated by this short dialogue:
But as time passed by, quite a few participants reported being disappointed and bored:
Multiple participants: Oh... they are learning games.
Amy, 5th grade, proficient in terms of math competency: Can we play some other games?
Researcher: What kind of games do you want to play?
A: Well, games that are fun.
(Ke, 2008, p1613)
13
In the context of teaching math, this instrumentalist approach of games stems from a
philosophy that distinguishes, however subtly, fun math from real math (Moyer, 2001). To be
real, math must involve all the formal symbols of academic math. Paradoxically, teachers use
games to try to engage students in new ways, but using games that are not actually fun seems to
defeat the purpose. The game, rather than being seen as a central element of the lesson, is often
relegated to an extra activity rewarding students who are already performing well. This is my
main rationale for exploring the potential of designer games people spontaneously play outside
of the classroom as an instructional tool, rather than using educational games no one would play
outside of a training context.
Modern board games in early childhood
When the use of off-the-shelf modern board games is studied, the results in terms of
cognitive development are very promising, and transcend socio-economic backgrounds. In their
pilot study Mackey et al. (2011) had children aged 7-10 play a variety of modern board games
during a 8-week long afterschool program. The results in terms of improvement of IQ tests and
fluid reasoning (the capacity to think logically and solve problems in novel situations) were
drastically positive. Children with the lowest starting IQ scores showed the greatest
improvements (gains of over 20 points), tackling the widespread belief that IQ is a set-in-stone
number that objectively reflects ones intelligence or capacity to learn. Similarly, Ramani,
Siegler, & Hitti (2012) showed that exposing preschoolers to linear number games (similar to
snakes & ladders) drastically improved childrens knowledge in counting, number line
estimation, numerical magnitude comparison and numerical identification, with children from
low-income backgrounds benefiting the most.
14
Those results are very encouraging, and show that an authentic use of board games can
lead to improved cognitive abilities. However, most studies seem to focus on young children. My
speculation is that most adults in North America view board games as an activity belonging to
childhood (with the exceptions of Chess and Scrabble). Designer board games are, unfortunately,
still unknown of the majority of people, which could explain the association of board gaming
with childish play.
Designer board games in secondary education
Research on the use of off-the-shelf board games in secondary education is
lacking. Several scholars and educators advocate for their use based on a qualitative assessment
of their strengths, but to my knowledge, no study has shown significant academic improvement
after teaching mathematics through designer games.
One of the most prominent arguments in favor of eurogames is that they stimulate higher
order thinking skills in the pyramid of Blooms taxonomy (Anderson et al., 1999). Not only do
they necessitate understanding and remembering the rules (which are often procedural in nature),
but players learn to analyse the board and evaluate possible moves in order to optimize their
actions. Eurogames promote interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, and complex decision making
in open-ended environments. They encourage students to think strategically and critically, and
reward flexibility, inquiry and negotiation (Mayer & Harris, 2010a).
Berland & Lee (2011) observed novice gamers play the cooperative eurogame Pandemic
(Leacock, 2007). Because of the cooperative nature of the game, players were encouraged to
vocalize their train of thought (spontaneous think-aloud process). They found that the players,
who were not versed into either board gaming or computer science, spontaneously developed all
four aspects of computational (or procedural) thinking: conditional logic, algorithmic building,

simulation, and debugging4.
15
These skills largely overlap with the skills necessary to be
successful at academic mathematics. Being able to recognize patterns, pay attention to the order
of actions and operations, create and choose plans of actions, correct ones own logic when faced
with inconsistencies, are all skills inherent to mathematical thinking. It is assumed that
competitive, strategic eurogames offer the same depth of thought, although it is harder to analyse
since it is not in players interest to use a think-aloud process.
Despite all these assets, including board games directly into classrooms is challenging.
Although the thinking skills involved are mathematical in nature, designer board games rarely
address curricular mathematics directly. Consequently, given the heavy load that teachers have to
cover in secondary and higher education, it seems reasonable to dismiss board games as an
interesting but time-consuming and rather tangential activity, compared to real teaching. I
havent found any resources that could potentially help teachers build lesson plans around the
practice of a board game. For example, Dilligerova (2012) advocates for the use of Settlers of
Catan (Teuber, 1995) and Carcassone (Wrede, 2000) in the math classroom but the article lacks
depth and practicality.
Alternatively, these types of games can be considered as a great extra-curricular activity.
Board game clubs in schools can be an outstanding opportunity to involve students in highly
cognitive tasks. Students will return to the games because they are inherently fun and social, and
Players spent time sharing their understanding of the rules and would discuss their interpretations every time the
procedures of the game produced an outcome that was unexpected (debugging). They developed arguments based
on conditional logic, such as if I move there, I can cure that city, otherwise I can go the other direction and give
you my card, but then theres a risk of outbreak. They soon learned to build algorithmic actions, which are
generalizations of conditional logic: every time there are three tokens on one city, we must cure it as soon as
possible, otherwise its going to get out of control. To cope with more and more complex problems, players used
simulations, where they would tentatively move pieces on the board to evaluate the outcome, before choosing one of
their simulations as a final decision.
16
will practice their higher order thinking skills in the process (Pritchard, 2007). Mayer & Harris (
2010b) wrote their article in the hope of convincing school libraries to invest in designer board
games as a new resource to support curricular learning. According to them, if selected properly,
designer board games can support not only mathematical and computational thinking, but also
social sciences, science, and even arts education.
Through this literature review, I have attempted to show some of the strengths and
limitations of using board games for education. Being the product of a passionate subculture,
designer board games are far superior to educational games at delivering an enjoyable and
fulfilling social experience. Even unmodified, they offer a rich and stimulating environment for
students to train their higher order computational thinking skills. However, resources helping
teachers to build lesson plans around designer board games are close to nonexistent.
Additionally, research on the correlation between the practice of board gaming and an
improvement of academic math performance is lacking, and there is currently no conclusive
quantitative evidence that shows whether game based learning is effective or not at improving
academic performance. An inclusion of modern board games through school libraries and extracurricular clubs seems to be a great first step in introducing students to this great resource. In my
personal research below, I aim to analyze some of my favorite strategic board games in-depth, in
order to evaluate their potential at teaching curricular math concepts.
17
3. Mathematical Analysis of Board Games

Methodology
After finding out in my critical literature review that no current research addressed the
actual mathematical content of modern board games, I decided to start the task myself.
Obviously, with thousands of board games published and hundreds of new ones being released
every year, it is impossible to be exhaustive in this endeavour. I chose to focus on only eight
board games in this research. For practical reasons, they are board games that I own, that I
appreciate playing on a regular basis, and that I had a feeling have their share of mathematical
content.
My board game analysis methodology is inspired by Woods analysis of Settlers of Catan
in his book (2012, p97). Woods creates a diagram of the game which dissects each action and
classifies it by the nature of its mechanic and the sub-goal associated with that action. I recreated
such diagrams for each of the ten games I studied and enriched the graphic with color coding and
identifying mathematical curricular content. Woods analysis (as well as mine) are based on a
taxonomy of game design created by Jrvinen in his thesis (2008): this taxonomy contains a list
of game mechanics and goals which can be applied to all kinds of games (games of skill, of luck,
sports, etc.). The complete list of game mechanics and goals can be found in the annex of this
document.
In addition to creating the diagrams, I also wrote a short analysis of the games based on
the interest of this research. I described the game and its core mechanics, listed and explained the
mathematical and procedural thinking involved in playing it, and discussed the desirability and
feasibility of bringing the game into a high school classroom setting.
18
After exploring the games in depth, I decided to separate mathematical thinking from
procedural thinking. Although I find the distinction a little bit artificial (they are both
mathematical ways of thinking in my opinion), I found the separation necessary in order to
distinguish curricular high school math from logical thinking that is more related to computer
science. For the purpose of this study, mathematical thinking refers to the dealings with numbers
and spatial arrangements. Procedural thinking, on the other hand, refers to the kind of logic that
is arises when order of events matters. Conditional logic (if x happens, then y happens),
algorithmic building (everytime I want x to happen, I need to do a, b and c in order) and
running simulations (lets imagine what happens if I do x. OK, lets imagine what happens if I
do y instead) are all building blocks of procedural thinking. They are more directly connected to
computer science than to high school math, although they are also highly valuable skillsets to
build for high school students.
I decided to analyze eight Eurogames: Settlers of Catane, Dominion, Citadels,
Carcassone, Ticket to Ride, 7 Wonders, Smallworld, and Myrmes.
19
Games Analysis
Settlers of Catane (Teuber, 1995)
Game Description: Eurogame; 3-4 players; 60 minutes
In Settlers of Catan, each player competes to build the most prosperous settlement on an island
rich in natural resources. Each turn, dice are rolled to determine what resources the island
produces. Players collect and trade these resources to build roads, settlements and cities and win
the game by accumulating 10 victory points before their opponents.
Gameplay diagram:
Core mechanics:
20
Resource management (production and allocation, investment returns), trading (through

negotiation), and building to accumulate victory points.
Mathematical thinking:
Probabilities: there is a very interesting potential to explore probabilities by studying the

expected outcome of rolling two dice in an organic context. The discussion about expected result
21
and probability of rolling a certain number can be expended into a conversation about strategy:
which spot on the map is going to produce more resources on average? Is it better to bet all
production on a few good numbers, or spread it out in many not so good numbers? Which trades
are good trades based on the setup of the map?
Procedural thinking:
The game proceeds in a set cycle that keeps repeating until the end of game condition is met
(first payer at 10 points). The order of actions doesnt matter in this game as much as in some
others, so procedural thinking is not emphasized in Settlers of Catan.
Desirability:
I see great potential in using Settlers of Catan in a probabilities unit. The game is simple to learn
and the numbers are directly visible. The game designer decided to help players choose the best
spots by highlighting certain numbers (6 and 8 are big and red, 5 and 9 are big and black, other
numbers are written smaller). These could be easily hidden to start the game with no bias as to
what spots are good and which arent. After playing, the teacher could start a conversation about
strategy and guide students into deciding which numbers are better to settle next to.
Feasibility:
A class would need one game per 4 students, and each game costs about $40, so it is quite
expensive (this argument will come back a lot). The game requires anywhere from 45 min to
1h30 to complete and this time is very variable depending on the game. That makes it hard to
manage.
22
Dominion (Vaccarino, 2008)
Game Description: Eurogame; 2-5 players; 45-60 minutes
Dominion is at its core a deck building card game. Each turn, players buy more cards to add to
their deck. These cards cycle through the deck until they are drawn and used to apply their
special effect. Cards combine with each other to create powerful synergies, which allow to buy
more expensive, better cards. Players compete to purchase victory cards, and the player with the
most victory points when the end of game is triggered is declared the winner.
Gameplay diagram:
Core mechanics:
23
Card game, deck building (investments for future turns), card synergies (combos)
Since Dominion is a card game, each turn you are given a random set of cards from your draw
pile. At advanced levels of play, this requires knowledge of probabilities to be able to anticipate
what cards have the biggest chance of turning up. This probabilistic knowledge (or intuition)
helps in building decks with strong synergy. The ideas of investment and investment returns, as
24
well as optimization (not directly numerical) are also present, but in an indirect way, and are not
directly related to curricular content in high school math.
Procedural Thinking:
In Dominion, the order of actions matters a lot, both within a players turn, and in the order one
decides to buy cards, since cards bought earlier during the game will turn up more often than
ones bought later on. Investing in cards in a sequence that is going to be most beneficial is one of
the keys in being successful in the game.
While
Desirability:
its
easy to
play
and
enjoy the
game
without
doing
any calculations,
mathematical/procedural thinking is required to get better at the game (strategies depend on

probabilities of certain cards drawn, and on order of investments). The strategy of choosing
which cards to buy depend on card interactions, and make it such a complex mathematical
environment that most players will not bother try to model it formally, and rely more on instinct.
Unfortunately, this complexity also makes it hard to relate directly to any given math unit.
Feasibility:
While less expensive than actual board games, it still is very expensive for a class set. The game
can be long when first learned. The investment in learning the game will not necessarily pay off
in terms of educational gains.
25
Citadels (Faidutti, 2000)
In Citadels, players compete to build the most prestigious city, composed of buildings geared
towards commerce, religion, military or nobility. Each round, players draft a character that they
will play as, benefitting from their special ability, earning gold and constructing buildings. Each
building built is worth victory points, which determine the winner.
Gameplay diagram:
Core mechanics:
26
Drafting characters (choosing a card then passing the rest to the neighbour), resource
management (production and allocation), building to accumulate victory points
There is arithmetic in planning the turn (choosing characters depends on how many coins were
accumulated, how many cards are in hand and buildings that are already built), probabilities in
27
attacking people (this is not obvious, because probabilities are mixed with bluff and psychology),
and investment and investment returns (this topic is not directly linked to a math unit)
Procedural thinking:
The game proceeds in a set cycle that keeps repeating until the end of game condition is met (the
first player to reach eight buildings). The order of actions matters, as well as the order of
characters played. Not taking these orders into consideration lead to non-optimal decisions.
Optimizing each turn to its maximum while avoiding taking too big a risk is at the core of
becoming a better player.
Desirability:
The heavy bluff/psychology aspect of the game make it very engaging, but not so great for math
class, as the gameplay is more subjective, and less math dependant than other games.
Feasibility:
The game is not as expensive as other games ($15/6 players) but can be long (over 1h for 6
players), which can make it difficult to include into lessons, unless we are willing to play for
entire periods. The math is not obvious and students might have a hard time even seeing that
math plays a role.
28
Carcassonne (Wrede, 2000)
In Carcassonne, all players place tiles in a domino fashion in order to build the common board.
During a turn, a player chooses where to place their tile and decides whether or not to place a
meeple (character token) on it. This meeple acts as a marker of control over the landscape
element drawn on the tile (building, road, city, prairie), which scores victory points upon
completion or at the end of the game. The player with more victory points wins the game when
all tiles are used.
Gameplay diagram:
Core mechanics:
29
Tile placement (domino style), Area of control (players control spatial elements of the game to
score points)
30
Mathematical thinking in Carcassonne is limited to spatial sense and optimization. Each turn, a
player must make the best out of their tile. Advanced tactics include probabilities, when all
players know the content of the remaining tiles, it is possible to plan turns ahead by anticipating
which kinds of tiles is more likely to turn up.
The turn sequence is very easy to learn and repeats itself over and over again. The complexity is
in the optimization of placement of tiles and meeples.
Desirability:
There is not much obvious math beyond spatial sense. There is more subtle math in game design
(how many tiles of each kind, etc.) but this aspect of the game would be more appropriate in a
game design course than in high-school math class.
Feasability:
A class set is expensive, but the game is fairly short (about 30-45 min once the rules are
assimilated). The game requires a big table.

Ticket to Ride (Moon, 2004)
In Ticket to Ride, players build railroad tracks across North America (or, if you own an
expension, in another part of the world). To be able to build a route, players need to own train
cards of the right color. Each track is worth a certain amount of points based on its length, and
each player owns hidden objective destination tickets which are worth additional points at the
end of the game if completed.
31
Gameplay diagram:
Core mechanics:
32
Choice among limited number of actions (one per turn), Resource management, Train placement,
Blocking
Mathematical thinking in Ticket to Ride touches on a lot of different topics. Spatial sense is
important, but because of the way cities are located and connected (setup already fixed by the
game board, no degree of freedom in how to connect cities), it is relevant to take into
consideration graph theory. The game can be formalized in a number of nodes connected into a
33
network, and can be optimized using algorithms of optimal delivery routes. The resource
management part of the game can be modeled using non-linear functions or geometric
sequences, so this part of the game could also be used to teach geometric investment returns.
The turn sequence is very easy and consists in a choice among three actions. The order one
chooses to use these actions matters a lot since people can block you at any point of the game.
The racing aspect of the game modifies the purely mathematical process of optimizing a route
and makes for more dynamic strategies (where you have to adapt to other players moves). The
sequences of play are simple, but reveal great depth once the basics are acquired.
Desirability:
Ticket to Ride seems to have a lot of potential for looking at functions (arithmetic investment
returns vs. geometric investment returns). I can also easily imagine the use of the game board for
a unit on graph theory and for optimization of routes.
Feasibility:
A class set would be very expensive, and the game can be fairly long when played 5 players (>1
hour), but it still has a lot of potential. The board takes up a lot of space. Many of these issues
can be minimized if we use the iPad app for the game instead of the actual board game. The app
is cheap, functional, doesnt take physical space, and speeds up the game.
34
7 Wonders (Bauza, 2010)
In 7 wonders, each player is the ruler of one of the civilizations/city states where the 7 wonders
of the ancient world were built. Each turn, players draft a card that they will build in their city.
The aim of the game is to be the most prestigious city in the ancient world by building a
combination of resource production facilities, military camps, scientific or cultural buildings.
Victory points are granted in each of these areas, so many different strategies can prove
victorious.
Gameplay diagram:
Core mechanics:
35
Card drafting (choosing a card among a hand of cards, then passing the remaining cards to the
neighbour), resource investment and management, building optimization
The whole game works on the principle of investing in resource production cards and trading
facilities early in the game in order to be able to build expensive and high-profit cards later in the
game. This process can be approached from a statistical point of view, by comparing average
36
points per card of particular moves. This leads to a mindset of optimization, where players
informally simulate situations and base their decisions on what they think the optimized
investment return is. At an advanced level where players know all the cards, probabilities
become more important as players can anticipate the likeliness of certain cards to turn up at
certain stages of the game.
The turn sequence is very easy and repeats itself over and over. The order of actions within a
turn doesnt matter, but understanding when to invest in what is what makes you a better player.
Desirability:
Although mathematical thinking is very present in the game, it is unfortunately not obvious to
link the game to one particular math unit. This game is still great to activate a lot of higher order
thinking skills in students, especially if teachers lead a debrief of various strategies attempted.
Feasibility:
A class set would be very expensive. One of the particularities of 7 wonders is that
because of the card drafting system, all players play their turn simultaneously, which speeds up
the game considerably even with 7 players. It is generally a great thing, but it might be hard to
debrief players decisions as the pace is pretty fast.
37
Smallworld (Keyaerts, 2009)
In Smallworld, each player controls a race in a fantasy setting. Once a player chooses a race, they
will start conquering regions on the board, strictly based on number of tokens expended. Each
region controlled scores victory points. As the name of the game indicates, quickly the board
becomes too small for everyone, and as the numbers of tokens in each race are limited, players
feel obligated to declare their race into decline, and choose a new race to wreak havoc with.
After a set number of turns of this rise and fall of civilizations, the player with most victory
points is declared victorious.
Gameplay diagram:
Core mechanics:
38
Choosing abilities (by choosing a combination of race + modifier), conquering
There is mathematical thinking in the optimization of turns (planning how many points will be
earned through choosing a course of action), and arithmetic in the average point per turn
calculations. Choosing a new race involves spending victory points, so players need to think
about the idea of investment returns to decide if spending is worth it.
39
The turn sequence repeats itself over and over. The order of actions matters a lot, especially the
timing of going into decline, which often decides the outcome of games.
Desirability:
It is not obvious to link this game to a particular math unit. There is a lot of optimization
involved but once again it is not obvious how to model it numerically.
Feasibility:
A class set would be expensive, and the game can be longer than desired for a classroom
experience. The board takes up a lot of space. Many of these issues can be mitigated by the use
of the iPad app, which is cheap and speeds up the game somewhat.
40
Myrmes (Levet, 2012)
In Myrmes, each player controls an ant colony which tries to thrive in a garden. Each player
owns its own ant colony board, but shares the outside world with their neighbours. Myrmes is a
worker placement game where, since the number of actions is very limited, each action counts
and players often struggle to do everything they planned to do: setting out pheromone paths to
reach food and materials, hunting for prey, digging up deeper to upgrade the colony, adding
more workers and nurses and feeding all these ants!
Gameplay diagram:
Core mechanics:
41
Worker placement (many actions are available each turn, but only a number of them can be used
at any given time by allocating workers), resource management, completion of objectives, board
placement
There is a ton of arithmetic involved in this game, as players need to constantly count every
resource and worker they own (or will own in subsequent turns) in order to optimize their next
42
move, so the game is great for mental math. The game was described to me by a friend who
ended up loving and buying it as very complex but fun counting.
The whole game is an optimization game where players constantly are looking for the optimized
way to use their resources (in terms of raw material and number of workers). Spatial sense is also
important for the placement of geometrical tiles on the shared game board.
This game is very heavy on procedural thinking. The order of actions is crucial and planning the
sequence of play correctly can make a big difference between a successful move and a mediocre
one. The game can be unforgiving because of the limited amount of turns. It takes multiple plays
to feel more in control of all the complex processes of the game.
Desirability:
It is not obvious to link the game to a particular math unit. There is a lot of optimization involved
but it is not obvious how to model it numerically. Although one of my personal favorites, it was
definitely designed with experienced strategy gamers in mind, and would probably be too
complex for many students.
Feasibility:
A class set would be expensive, and the game is very long for a classroom period (~2 hours). The
board takes up a lot of space.
43
4. Findings and Implications for teacher practice

Main findings
The board games I analyzed proved to be very rich in terms of higher order thinking,
especially in terms of optimization. Many of these strategy games are based on the principle of
making the best of limited resources. However, I anticipated finding more obvious connexions
between the kinds of thinking involved in these board games and the high school mathematics
curriculum. My anticipated mathematical thinking included in board game seems to be more of
a mix of numerical mathematical thinking and procedural thinking, which would be more
appropriate to explore in a computer science course rather than a high school math class.
There are also fairly big logistical obstacles to using board games in classroom settings.
Off-the-shelf modern board games are expensive ($40 a game on average) and getting class sets
would be a great investment, which might not be worth it since for many of these games, the link
with the formal mathematics curriculum is not obvious. Time management might also prove
difficult, since the length of these games varies greatly, and in a class of 25 students, a teacher
might end up with two groups that are finished early, while three other groups are still playing
when the bell rings.
Of all the games I analyzed, two struck me for their potential in a math class: Settlers of
Catan and Ticket to Ride. Settlers of Catan could be an ideal fit for a unit on probabilities (Sec 2
to Sec 5). In my experience, this game is appreciated by a wide variety of people and the
mathematical content is fairly obvious (the numbers are visible) and approachable. The game can
be tweaked to offer an interesting mathematical challenge (see game analysis) and interesting
mathematical conversations could arise from debriefing games and discussing strategies. Ticket
to Ride would be great for a unit on graph theory and the optimization of routes (Sec 5). The
44
board is comparable to some of the problems students would see in class anyway, but set in a
much more fun context than the word problems they are usually offered. Now that victory is at
stake, I can see students being more engaged in trying to understand how to optimize a delivery
route.
Implication for teacher practice
After analyzing these eight games in depth, I unfortunately have the feeling that in many
of these cases, the cons of bringing the games into the classroom are overwhelming compared to
the pros. Investing in class sets of board games will be expensive for schools, and often
impractical for teachers. The links between the games and the math curricular content is often
not obvious.
However, after such in depth analysis, I am more than ever convinced that playing these
kinds of strategy modern board games is very stimulating for the brain and would help students
practice their logic, higher order thinking and decision making, as well as better understand
concepts of investment returns and resource management (which everyone ends up having to
practice with money).
Therefore, I am still convinced that modern board games have a place in the school
environment. I have two recommendations to introduce board games in the school context:
Encourage school councils and librarians to invest in modern strategy board games.
Many school libraries struggle to peak students interests with cultural artifacts. Offering
a variety of high quality board games could be a great option to engage student in a
cognitively and culturally rich social activity.
45
Create an extra-curricular board game club. In such a club, only one copy of each game
needs to be purchased, and it gives educators an opportunity to explore or explain math
concepts in a non-threatening and fun environment. Teachers involved in the club get to
know students on a more personal basis. Finally, a modern board game club promotes a
healthy, social and intellectual hobby that some students will continue practicing after
graduation.
Conclusion
This research aimed at answering three main questions: where does the enjoyment of
playing board games come from? What kind of math is there in board games? Is introducing
board games in a high school math class desirable?
I was able to answer the first question through a self-study and my critical literature
review. A game can be engaging because of the mental challenge it proposes, the pleasure of
immersion in the games narrative, the changes of emotions and sense of flow it triggers, and its
social nature.
My own experience with strategy games, as well as my training as a math teacher,
encouraged me to explore the mathematical content present in board games. Most strategy board
games present a mix of mathematical and procedural thinking (more directly relatable to
computer science than to the high school math classroom). The link between the mathematical
thinking involved in board games and the formal math curriculum of high school is not always
obvious.
Because of this and of a number of logistical challenges such as purchasing class sets of
expensive board games and time management of game sessions, I do not recommend the regular
use of board games in the mathematics classroom. In this research, I do see two exceptions to
46
this general trend: Settlers of Catan, which could be used for a unit on probabilities, and Ticket to
Ride, which seems ideal for a unit on graph theory and the optimization of delivery routes.
Despite this slight setback in my expectations to use board games in math instruction, I
wholeheartedly recommend the introduction of board games in the school context through
building a collection at the school library, and through creating a board game club where all the
great benefits of board games can be experienced by students in non-threatening environment
and without tight time constraints.
47
References
Anderson, N., Bebe, K., Ellen, M., Darling, K., Davis, J., Goldsmith, D., Taton, K. (1999).
Teaching Mathematics and Science to English-Language Learners. Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratoory.
Axelrod, A. (2004). Everything I know about business I learned from Monopoly: successful
executives reveal strategic lessons from the worlds greatest board game. Running Press.
Berland, M., & Lee, V. R. (2011). Collaborative Strategic Board Games as a Site for Distributed
Computational Thinking. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 1(2), 6581.
http://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2011040105
BoardGameGeek. (2014). Eurogame. Retrieved from
http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Eurogame
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (Vol. 41). New York:
HarperPerennial. Retrieved from
http://learn.moodle.net/pluginfile.php/6345/mod_glossary/attachment/893/flow_the_psycho
logy_of_optimal_experience.pdf
Curry, A. (2009, March 23). Monopoly Killer: Perfect German Board Game Redefines Genre.
Wired Magazine. Retrieved from
http://archive.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/magazine/1704/mf_settlers?currentPage=all
Dilligerova, M. (2012). Commensalism between board games and teaching maths. In M. Billich
(Ed.), Teaching mathematics III: innovation, new trends, research (pp. 6166).
Ruzomberok: Verbum.
48
Ferguson, R. (1995). Chess in education research summary. In Chess in Education A Wise

Move conference.
Gobet, F., Retschitzki, J., & Voogt, A. de. (2004). Moves in mind: The psychology of board
games. Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203503638
Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Routledge. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED340679.pdf#page=248
Jrvinen, A. (2008). Games without frontiers: Theories and methods for game studies and
design. Tampere University Press.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methosds and
strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons.
Ke, F. (2008). A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay?
Computers & Education, 51(4), 16091620. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.003
Ke, F., & Grabowski, B. (2007). Gameplaying for maths learning: cooperative or not? British
Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 249259. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678535.2006.00593.x
Lazzaro, N. (2004). Why we play games: Four keys to more emotion without story.
Mackey, A. P., Hill, S. S., Stone, S. I., & Bunge, S. a. (2011). Differential effects of reasoning
and speed training in children. Developmental Science, 14(3), 58290.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01005.x
Manusos, D., Busby, J., & Clark, A. (2013). Authentic Design in Gaming: Changing the Rules of
Play. Technology and Engineering Teacher.
49
Martens, T. (2012, November 12). Board games are growing in popularity again. Los Angeles
Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/12/business/la-fi-ct-boardgames-20121113-71
Mayer, B., & Harris, C. (2010a). Libraries got game: Aligned learning through modern board
games. American Library Association.
Mayer, B., & Harris, C. (2010b). Reintroducing Board Games. In Libraries got game: Aligned
learning through modern board games (pp. 727).
Moyer, P. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175197.
http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014596316942
Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teachers life. San
Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pritchard, G. (2007). Teachers corner: An Overview of Modern Games and How to Use Them
in School. Educational Dealer. Retrieved from
http://www.eddealermagazine.com/articles.php?view=article&id=194
Ramani, G. B., Siegler, R. S., & Hitti, A. (2012). Taking it to the classroom: Number board
games as a small group learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 661
672. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0028995
Treher, E. N. (2011). Learning with Board Games Tools for Learning and Retention. Washington
Crossing, PA: The Learning Key Inc.
van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: Its not just the digital natives who are restless.
EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 116.
50
Wingfield, N. (2014, May 5). High tech push has board game rolling again. New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/technology/high-tech-push-has-boardgames-rolling-again.html
Woods, S. (2012). Eurogames: The Design, Culture and Play of Modern European Board
Games. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
51
Annex
taxonomy of game mechanics and goals (Jrvinen, 2008), enriched by Woods and myself:
Game goals and sub-goals:
Accumulation
points)
(scoring
- Capture
- Collection
- Conceal
- Contact
- Delivery
Game mechanics:
-
Acceleration
Aiming/shooting
Allocating
Arranging
Attacking/defending
Bidding
Browsing
info)
- Eliminate
(reading
Moving
(of character)
Operating
(taking action that
belongs to the game
system)
Performing (acting)
Placing
Point-to-Point
movement
- Enclosure
Building
- Evade
Buying/selling
Physical force
- Exploration
Catching
- Gain competence
Choosing
Sequencing
(order matters)
- Gain information
Composing
(create image/sound)
Sprinting/slowing
Storytelling
Conquering
Submitting
Contracting
Substituting
Controlling
Taking
Conversing
Trading
- Last man standing
Discarding
Transforming
- Overcome (defeat through

multiple low-level actions)
Enclosing
Expressing (verbally)
Upgrading/
downgrading
Herding
(indirect movement)
Voting
- Rescue
Information seeking
- Stealth
Jumping
- Survive
Manoeuvering
- Traverse
Motion (physical)
- Gain ownership
- Guard
- Herd
- King of the hill (reach goal
and maintain it)
- Race
- Reconnaissance

Capstone Math and Board Games Luc-Amrit Chauny

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Capstone Math and Board Games Luc-Amrit Chauny

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

Math and Board Games

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

Situating the researcher ............................................................................................. 5

Mathematical Analysis of Board Games ................................................................ 17

Findings and Implications for teacher practice ....................................................... 43

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

Problem solving in board games is often mathematical in nature, providing a context to

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

(Ke, 2008, p1613)

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

3. Mathematical Analysis of Board Games

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

Game Description: Eurogame; 3-4 players; 60 minutes

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

Resource management (production and allocation, investment returns), trading (through

Probabilities: there is a very interesting potential to explore probabilities by studying the

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

Dominion (Vaccarino, 2008)

Game Description: Eurogame; 2-5 players; 45-60 minutes

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

mathematical/procedural thinking is required to get better at the game (strategies depend on

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

Citadels (Faidutti, 2000)

Game Description: Eurogame; 2-7 players; 60 minutes

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

Carcassonne (Wrede, 2000)

Game Description: Eurogame; 2-5 players; 45 minutes

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

Game Description: Eurogame; 2-5 players; 60-75 minutes

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

7 Wonders (Bauza, 2010)

Game Description: Eurogame; 2-7 players; 45-60 minutes

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

Smallworld (Keyaerts, 2009)

Game Description: Eurogame; 2-5 players; 60-90 minutes

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

Choosing abilities (by choosing a combination of race + modifier), conquering

MATH AND BOARD GAMES

MATH AND BOARD GAMES