[Tristan Lall]

I think that the comparison to video games immediately stirs up all sorts of prejudices against a form of recreation that isn't well understood by the population at large. In that sense, it might be detrimental to use that analogy in public discourse.

Similarly, even among the technologically-inclined, it's too easy to fail to distinguish between giving children shiny things because those children are making unreasonable demands, and giving children shiny things because they're fascinating and promote learning.

Computers (and other similar devices) have great potential for facilitating both self-directed and collaborative learning styles. They can also be used poorly, in much the same way chalk and blackboards have often been misused for the last 200 years. ("Now copy this....") In other words, it's about having a sensible approach to teaching and learning, and not so much about categorically avoiding particular tools. (Granted, there are many reasons why settling upon a sensible approach using laptops, tablets or full-motion simulators might be more difficult or less practical than with traditional teaching implements.)

Either way, I do see value in using a reward structure that bears an incidental similarity to the ones used in video games—it's basically using positive reinforcement correlated with milestones, which, if I'm not mistaken, is generally considered an effective way to teach young students.