Synthesis & Implications

While our lenses differed in terms of focus, varying from individual, group, and situation-level analysis, we all found that learning on Tabletop is influenced immensely by the context, structure, and production of the TV show itself. The culture of the show, revolving around gaming and Youtube, affected people's conversations and behaviors. Players' choice of language, willingness to help each other, and decisions to act out their moves for the camera were all intertwined with the way the show is run.

Wil, as host, also set a tone and comfort level for his guests. He encouraged others, guided people's actions, provided scaffolding, and tried to make the show entertaining. By inviting his friends and co-workers to join him on set, he ensured players knew at least one familiar face; they could all feel at least somewhat comfortable with the others at the table. This environment affected players' willingness to contribute to the learning on Tabletop, enabling them to voice their opinions and provide help to others at the table.

Experience and prior knowledge played a consistent role across our lenses, as well. In fact, experience could be defined in multiple ways on Tabletop. While some "old-timers" knew the context of the show well, e.g. Wil and Felicia, other "old-timers" knew a specific game well, e.g. an experienced player like Steve Jackson. "Newcomers" also consisted of new Tabletop guests as well as novice board game players. These varying roles influenced players' interactions with each other, on the show and within the game. Experienced players often provided scaffolding to novice players to help them accomplish a task in the game (as seen through Constructivism and Social Constructivism), while old-timers provided cognitive apprenticeship to newcomers by guiding them into the community of practice that is Tabletop (as seen through Situativity).

The fact that the show revolved around tangible board game equipment also affected the learning observed through each of our lenses. Game pieces could be viewed as person-plus tools through which players could offload cognition (Situativity), as well as external references through which players could ground discussion, express their prior knowledge, and focus the attention of the group (Constructivism and Social Constructivism).

Having more experienced gamers on the show, like Steve Jackson (the creator of Munchkin), would probably enhance learning on Tabletop. Experienced players could provide more scaffolding and guided questioning to novices, allowing players to learn more effectively. Perhaps other types of experts, beyond entertainers, could also join the show as players. Famous mathematicians, for instance, might be able to provide strategic advice and scaffolding. Their perspectives might differ from those of the typical entertainers featured on the show.

On Tabletop, having the same players appear on several episodes might allow more players to feel comfortable vocalizing their thoughts and actively participating in the Tabletop community. While Wil and Felicia consistently talked a lot throughout the episodes, as they were old-timers on Tabletop, some newcomers were not exceptionally communicative. Although Wil served as a familiar face, many players may have otherwise been surrounded by strangers around the table. Having the same group of players appear more frequently throughout various episodes likely would have increased camaraderie among the players, perhaps allowing them to be more vocal, critical, and helpful.

In the future, it would be interesting to explore how different age groups learn through board games. The players on Tabletop consisted entirely of young to middle-aged adults. How would factors such as the conversational landscape, equipment manipulations, and group dynamics all shift when children have a seat at the table?

It would also be interesting to watch a show in which the rules were explained in front of the camera. Learning the rules to a game seems like another interesting type of learning that has the potential be observed and analyzed. During our observations, we were unable to observe people learning the rules to any of the board games. How far in advance did the players know the game of choice? Did the novices get any practice before the cameras turned on? These questions remain unanswered.

With more time, it would perhaps be interesting to compare and contrast the different mediums through which people play games. How might the outlet through which people play games affect learning? For instance, how does learning through board games differ from learning through video games? While we can speculate as to how learning through board games might differ on a TV show rather than in person, it would be interesting to actually observe groups playing games in-person to make more thorough comparisons. Also, do the interactions on Tabletop differ significantly from other shows centered around games? Analyzing all of these spaces might allow us to make broader claims about learning through games, or simply help us understand how Tabletop's environment can be considered unique.