{"id":7875,"date":"2026-09-10T14:39:09","date_gmt":"2026-09-10T20:39:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/?p=7875"},"modified":"2026-09-10T14:39:09","modified_gmt":"2026-09-10T20:39:09","slug":"the-becker-lazy-test-blt-for-educational-games-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/2026\/09\/10\/the-becker-lazy-test-blt-for-educational-games-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The Becker Lazy Test (BLT) for Educational Games"},"content":{"rendered":"Approximate Reading Time: <\/span> 2<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span>

The Becker Lazy Test<\/strong><\/span> is something I developed many years ago as part of my 4-PEG game assessment template.<\/a> (4PEG = 4 Pillars of Educational Games). Some of that is described in detail in my book,\u00a0Choosing and Using Digital Games in the Classroom \u2013 A Practical Guide<\/a><\/strong>, published in 2016 by Springer.<\/p>\n

Here’s the TL;DR version:<\/p>\n

When I am examining a game, I see how far I can get without reading or learning anything. I simply follow the known mechanics (if obvious) or click randomly. If I can get to the end this way, it does NOT pass as an educational game. I don’t need to learn anything to get through it.<\/p>\n

Put very simply, it should not be possible to get through an educational game by brute force or by random chance alone. Now, I know that this may seem very similar to Margaret Gredler’s claims about games vs simulations made in her chapter on simulations and games in the AECT Handbook of 1996 (Gredler, 1996) where she said that games should not have a random factor. If you read my other book, The Guide to Computer Simulations and Games<\/a> – especially the chapter on randomness – you will already know how important the “random factor” is to BOTH simulations AND games. Gredler used this as a way to distinguish simulations from games (which is misguided), but she also used this as a way to separate games she liked from those she found frivolous.<\/p>\n

What I’m<\/strong><\/em> saying is: If random actions on MY part<\/strong><\/em> can get me through the game, then it’s not an educational game. Note: That says nothing about whether the game is fun or entertaining. ALmost ALL games can, should, and MUST have at least some randomness, or else it is nothing more than a branching story.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

\u201cLazy Jane\u201d by Shelf Silverstein, originally published in Where the Sidewalk Ends<\/p><\/div>\n

SO, these are the questions that go along with the Becker Lazy Test. A YES answer to any of these constitutes a PASS. A PASS is a BAD thing.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Is it possible to get through the game by randomly clicking on things? In other words, could I win the game by simply memorizing which things to click without knowing what those things are?<\/li>\n
  2. Are the educational objectives included among the required learning in the game?<\/li>\n
  3. Is it possible to get through the game while ignoring the learning objectives? The required learning in the game should be PART of the game and not only found in pop-up screens of text.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

     <\/p>\n

    There. I said what I said.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n