Pre/post increase in math performance after gameplay.
Federally funded multi-site trial. Statistically significant at p = 0.01.
Federally funded multi-site trial. Statistically significant at p = 0.01.
Not enjoyment. Demand. The same students who said school is boring asked for more.
Students reported, after playing, that the experience made them more interested in STEM. Retrospective self-report.
Near-perfect linear relationship at the class level: classes that progressed further through a storyline showed proportionally higher learning growth on that storyline.
Coded transcripts of out-loud conversation between students sitting next to each other — not self-report, not in-game chat.
Our research doesn't stop at proving the platform works. These are the open questions we're pushing on now — what's in pilot, what we expect to publish, and where we'd welcome partners.
We've embedded a "Skeptical Friend" inside gameplay that pushes back on student thinking before group discussion. We're analyzing pilot data to see whether it produces more elaborated reasoning.
Exploring whether the lower-stakes game environment changes classroom culture around sharing rough-draft thinking.
Tracking the arc from individual sensemaking → AI-supported elaboration → group discourse → revised understanding. When do conceptual shifts actually happen?
Studying what experts, teachers, and students each genuinely contribute to the design process — and where each voice changes the product.
Investigating how to make 3D spaces and game-based inquiry genuinely accessible — not just compliant, but designed for equal learning from the start.
Moving past content generation to genuine pedagogical quality — can AI tell strong inquiry design from weak, and support authors who are building it?