McTigue and Henning Uppstad (2018) highlight that in many cases, motivation needs to be fostered through “competence and relatedness/community”, as these are two needs in motivation theory (self-determination theory) that are not necessarily inherent to playing computer literacy games. More specifically, to foster relatedness and community, students should collaborate and engage with peers, which in turn may result in better learning outcomes overall. In my opinion, the most important component is the role of the teacher in providing instruction, guidance and modeling. We cannot assume simply because students were born into the “age of tech” that they are proficient in all tech tools. During computer literacy games, teachers still need to provide instruction, connect learning goals between the game and course content, ensure that literacy skills are transferring from one context to another, model appropriate use of the technology and explain the games rules, instructions and functions and track students’ goals and progress. Although computer games are an excellent tool to make literacy fun and exciting for students, it must be used as a complementary tool to other methods of instruction. 

As McTigue and Henning Uppstad (2018) explain, technology must enhance learning. I agree and do not believe that it can be used and relied on solely to teach students about literacy. Although I do not work in a primary or secondary setting, I still have witnessed this in my current context, which is post secondary education. Some teachers have implemented tech in their classrooms as a way to occupy the time and keep students engaged by their screens, but this defeats the whole purpose of introducing tech into the classroom because it is trying to connect it to content and pedagogy, however in their concluding insights, McTigue and Henning Uppstad (2018) illustrate that “an important point is also the direction of movement, going from the known fields (content/pedagogy) toward the unknown (technology), not vice versa” (p.459). However, many of the myths that have been outlined in the reading as well as my experience with teachers in my context, “often represent the opposite movement: from technology into content and pedagogy” (p.459). Teachers I’ve worked with have often taken a “hands-off”approach when utilizing tech in the classroom because they expect the tech to do the work but it is evident from McTigue and Henning Uppstad’s (2018) work, that the continued presence and role of the teacher in these learning environments is vital for learning to actually take place.