People love to say “games make learning better,” but Moe Ash has a more grounded take. In this episode, Sofie Willox sits down with Moe to explore what makes a learning game effective, and what makes it feel like play with no purpose.

Moe introduces the idea of “hard fun”: learning experiences that are enjoyable, but still tied to clear outcomes, tangible behaviours, and real performance goals. Together, Sofie and Moe walk through where L&D professionals should actually start when designing a learning game or card deck, especially when we are not “commercial game designers,” but practitioners trying to build capability and drive behaviour change.

The conversation is practical, structured, and refreshingly honest. If you have ever wanted to build a learning game but felt overwhelmed by mechanics, format choices, or where to begin, this episode gives you a clear entry point and a design process you can reuse.

_____________________________________

Moe Ash

Moe is currently looking into acquiring his degree in business psychology, aiming to blend gamification and performance management in a tight cohesive mold. Moe is the founder of The Catalyst, a learning design consultancy focused solely on creating impeccable learning experiences.

Find Moe on LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/moeash7/

Also, here are the mentioned links:

• The learning game design doc: https://view.genially.com/65cb7727f6eacd00144b3164
• The gamification GPT: https://chatgpt.com/g/g-L0EDT7FS0-gamification-learning-guide-the-catalyst

SHOW NOTES:

In this episode of the LDA Podcast, Matt and Clark are joined by longtime friend of the show Kat Koppett for a thoughtful and lively conversation about how we think, learn, and make sense of the world.

The discussion opens with a substantive exchange on whether critical thinking can be taught as a general skill. Matt argues that critical thinking depends on deep domain knowledge rather than generic techniques. Clark challenges this view by drawing on research by Peter Ellerton and earlier work by Valerie Shute and Jeffrey Bonar, exploring the limits and possibilities of instruction and transfer.

To clarify the debate, Matt introduces a shared definition of critical thinking based on Peter Facione’s framework. Kat reinforces the point by noting that people struggle to think critically without relevant information, echoing ideas popularized in The Invisible Gorilla by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons.

The conversation then turns to generational differences in thinking. Clark introduces Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery model, which leads to a broader discussion of experience, learning, and whether “digital natives” actually think differently. Hint... they don't exist. They push back on generational myths by highlighting research showing little difference in search strategies across age groups.

The episode closes with Matt reflecting on the enduring influence of developmental psychologist Richard Lerner and his work on human development.

Selected References

• Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts.

• Ellerton, P. (2022). Thinking Skills and Creativity.

• Shute, V., & Bonar, J. (1986).

• Chabris, C., & Simons, D. The Invisible Gorilla.

• Lerner, R. M. (1976). Concepts and Theories of Human Development.

• Jarche, H. Personal Knowledge Mastery: https://jarche.com/pkm/

Clark and Matt decided to share a special episode from our sister cast, YOU OUGHTA KNOW: THE MOTIVATION SERIES. In this special episode, Matt is joined by the co-developer of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), Richard M. Ryan, to talk about all things motivation. Think of it as a primer on SDT. We hit the basics…

• What is motivation? What is SDT?‎
• ‎What are the origins of SDT?‎
• ‎The different types of motivation.‎
• ‎Rewards and their impact on one’s motivation.‎
• ‎Of course, the famous three basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness).‎
• ‎We discuss strategies one may take to either create environments to meet others’ needs or to do it for oneself.‎
• ‎What is well-being? How is well-being related to motivation?‎
• ‎Is SDT universal? Is it culturally descriptive in all cases?‎
• ‎And more!

During our discussion on mindfulness, Rich refers to a recently published meta-analysis.

The reference is:

Donald, James N., Helena Nguyen, James H. Conigrave, Anya Johnson, Inmaculada Adarves-Yorno, Ryan Cheng, Anya Bedi, Kevin B. Lowe, Jessica L. Lyons, Emma K. Devine, Georg B. Tamm and Richard M. Ryan (2025). ‘ Does Leaders’ Mindfulness Benefit Followers? A Meta-analytic Review and Research Agenda.’ British Journal of Management, 11111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.70009

Matt refers to a 1999 meta-analysis on the impact of rewards. That reference is:

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

Three references about the cultural generalizability of SDT are:

Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97

Chirkov, V. I. (2009). A cross-cultural analysis of autonomy in education: A self-determination theory perspective. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 253-262. https://doi.org/

Chirkov, V. I. (2017). Culture and autonomy. The Praeger handbook of personality across cultures, 2, 91-119. https://doi.org/

Rich is a clinical psychologist and is currently a Professorial Fellow at the Australian Catholic University’s Institute for Positive Psychology & Education in North Sydney; he’s also Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Rochester, where he helped spark one of the most enduring frameworks of human motivation in the last half-century.