Cambridge Journal of eduCation

2018, Vol. 48, No. 5, 533–552

https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2017.1371671

A review of five African board games: is there any educational

potential?
Rebecca Yvonne Bayeck
College of Education, Learning Performance Systems Department, Penn State University, University Park,
United States

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Studies of African indigenous games often focus on a specific game Received 3 June 2016
or on games from different regions. This article, rather, examines Accepted 22 August 2017
five popular African board games in order to find the similarities KEYWORDS
and differences among these games. The analysis shows similarities Board games; curriculum;
among them. However, these similarities do not necessarily mean game-based learning;
that these games are identical. The review of the games indicates that African games
these games are different when elements such as rules and play are
used to study them. This article also demonstrates that these board
games are tools that can be integrated into the curriculum through
a discussion of the educational affordance of each game. The article
is an invitation to educators and game researchers to broaden the
definition and exploration of game-based learning.

Introduction
The value of games in educational settings is well documented in the literature (Prensky,
2001; Prensky, 2006; Berland & Lee, 2011). Addressing the added value of games, Prensky
(2001) observed that ‘games are a form of fun that gives us enjoyment and pleasure … a form
of play that gives us intense and passionate involvement’ (p. 106). Games have rules and
goals that offer players structure and motivation, while the outcomes, feedback and prob-
lem-solving embedded in games provide learning and stimulate creativity (Prensky, 2001).
Board games are a particular category of games (Berland & Lee, 2011). They involve
moving pieces across ‘a premarked surface using counters or dice’ (Retalis, 2008). Research
shows that board games affect players’ cognitive development and have the potential to
enhance players’ ‘perception, memory and thinking’ (Gobet, de Voogt, & Retschitzki, 2004).
Cognitive psychology literature reveals that board games allow expert players to acquire
thinking mechanisms and behaviours similar to experts in fields such as medicine, mathe-
matics or physics (Gobet et al., 2004). Such games have been proved to improve children’s
numerical knowledge (Ramani & Siegler, 2008). Computational thinking skills such as
conditional logic (involves if–then–else), algorithm (i.e. construction of a plan of action
with the goal to reuse it in the future), debugging (i.e. identifying errors), and distributed
computation, which refers to taking actions or developing strategy based on rules with the

CONTACT  Rebecca Yvonne Bayeck  baryonne28@gmail.com

© 2017 University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education
534   R. Y. BAYECK

contribution of other players are other skills board games offer to players (Berland & Lee,
2011). Thus, board games have embedded within them an educational potential that could
benefit learners if included in an educational setting.
In spite of their educational potential, board games have rarely been used in an African
educational context in the way they have been used in K–12 and university settings in
Europe or the United States (Berland & Lee, 2011). Board game research mostly focuses
on western games in western settings. Though games are activities people in Africa engage
in either for entertainment, or for physical fitness, prestige, recognition and status, among
other motives (Dyer, 2013; Wanderi, 2011), few studies have investigated African games,
their potential and possible inclusion in the curriculum.
Nevertheless, the growing interest in indigenous knowledge results in an increased rec-
ognition of African games’ value for learning and teaching subjects such as mathematics
(Owusu-Mensah & Quan-Baffour, 2015), and prompts some researchers to call for the
integration of African games into the curriculum (Owusu-Mensah & Quan-Baffour, 2015).
Researchers argue that the accessibility of these games and their cultural relevance make
them cheaper for schools and appropriate for African learners (Nyota & Mapara, 2008;
Owusu-Mensah & Quan-Baffour, 2015).
However, research exploring the learning potentials of African games often either dis-
cusses games in general with no specific focus on board games (Mawere, 2012; Nyota &
Mapara, 2008; Wanderi, 2011), or examines a specific board game (Nkopodi & Mosimege,
2009; Owusu-Mensah & Quan-Baffour, 2015). African board games are particularly under-
studied and limited in the literature comparing African board games’ learning potentials
(de Voogt, Dunn-Vaturi, & Eerkens, 2013). For instance, in his discussion of various sowing
and counting African board games (i.e. mancala games), Townshend (1982) explained that
these games are mostly variations of the same game. A review of African board games is
thus needed to understand their differences or similarities, and more importantly their
potential in terms of learning. While this endeavour cannot be completed in one study,
building on literature demonstrating the learning effects of games, and board games in
particular (Berland & Lee, 2011; Gee, 2005; Ramani & Siegler, 2008), this study aims to add
to the literature on games by discussing the learning potential of selected African board
games. Game studies research shows that games are not just fun, they are teaching tools
and do engage students (Gee, 2005; Prensky, 2001). This paper draws on archaeological
and anthropological work to describe the games and their purposes, and to discuss the
educational potential of five African board games.

Use of games in Africa

Games are often characterised by the presence of rules and outcomes (Augustyn & Bronner,
2013).
Zimmerman (2004) defines a game as ‘a voluntary interactive activity in which one or
more players follow rules that constrain their behavior, enacting an artificial conflict that
ends in a quantifiable outcome’ (p. 160). Therefore, games differ from other forms of activity,
especially because of the rules that guide actions and affect the outcome in the game play
(Simons, 2007).
In Africa, games have been used for different purposes. Wanderi (2011) explains that
games were respected cultural elements used to share and acquire information, ‘intellectual
 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION   535

skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes and motor skills for all’ (p. 3). As such, games were
part of the social, intellectual and cultural fabric of African societies. Anthropologists and
researchers interested in African indigenous games argue that Africa has a long history of
game play (de Voogt, 2001). Games were and are still part of daily activities in Africa, where
they have been used for entertainment and cultural transmission, as well as learning (Gobet
et al., 2004; Nkopodi & Mosimege, 2009; Nyota & Mapara, 2008). Researchers contend
that African games are learning environments where players acquire various life skills and
values such as perseverance, harmony, leadership, and social, verbal and mathematics skills
(Mutema, 2013; Nyota & Mapara, 2008; Tatira, 2014).
Surveying games of the Shona people in Zimbabwe, Nyota and Mapara (2008) demon-
strate in their study that these games were spaces for interactive apprenticeships and skills
practice. Shona traditional games contribute to the socialisation and cognitive development
of players as they learn through play to control their emotions, numeracy and social skills,
and build their self-confidence (Nyota & Mapara, 2008). Psychomotor skills, learning of
movements (Lyoka, 2007), mathematical processes (Gerdes, 2008; Mosimege & Ismael,
2004) and affective skills are other educational benefits of playing some African games
(Roux, Burnett, & Hollander, 2008). Nyoni and Nyoni (2013) add that African games are
rich learning environments which allow players to explore their immediate environment
and in the process, learn values (e.g. honesty, hard work and handling of success or failure)
that shape their contribution in the local and global society. In sum, African games appear
to be learning spaces with rich content (Nyoni & Nyoni, 2013) that should be harnessed for
their educational potential. However, as previously stated, the current study focuses on five
African board games: Oware, Bao, Moruba, Morabaraba and Omweso. These games were
selected because of their popularity, that is the presence in the literature, their relationship
with Sub-Saharan Africa, and their identification as board games in the literature.

Conceptual framework
Salen and Zimmerman (2004) argue that framework in game studies helps structure the
study of games by providing the lenses through which games are analysed and described.
To explore African board games, this inquiry draws on the concept of ‘game design sche-
mas’ which is simply a way of looking at games in order to understand ‘information …
the formal, experiential, and cultural aspects of games … and knowledge [representation]
at different levels of abstraction’ (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004, p. 103). Schemas vary and
are many because games can be examined through multiple and different lenses (Salen &
Zimmerman, 2004). Thus, for the purpose of this study, two schemas were adopted: rules,
and culture as a means to connect each game with its educational/learning potentials. Rules,
as the principal schema, provides a physical description of the game (Salen & Zimmerman,
2004). For the purpose of this paper, the rules schema includes game mechanics. Game
mechanics refers to actions, rules and type or quality of interactions players make during
play (Arnab et al., 2015). Culture points to the cultural context in which the game is rooted
(Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). In this study, the culture schema also includes the country,
the goal and purpose of the game (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004).
536 R. Y. BAYECK

African board games

Oware game: rules and mechanics
Oware (in Ghana among Akan) is a board game found in West, East and North Africa. The
name of the game varies depending on the country and/or region. In Nigeria, it is called
Ncho among the Igbo; Ayo among Yoruba; Soro in Uganda; Chigogo in the coastal region
of Kenya; Mancala in Egypt; Wali in Mali and Wure in Senegal (Gerdes, 1994; Onyefulu,
2000; Owusu-Mensah & Quan-Baffour, 2015; Wanderi, 2011).
The game (Figure 1) consists of two rows of six holes belonging to each player or group of
players, and often two extra holes placed centrally at the end of each row (Owusu-Mensah
& Quan-Baffour, 2015). These holes, carved out of wood or dug in the ground, are used to
store the seeds captured by each player as the game progresses (Onyefulu, 2000; Wanderi,
2011). The game is played with 48 seeds/pebbles, two players (sometimes two teams), and
the game begins by placing four marbles in each hole, and players agreeing on who starts
dropping seeds in the holes (Onyefulu, 2000; Owusu-Mensah & Quan-Baffour, 2015). Seeds
are often from trees, or dried palm nuts (Owusu-Mensah & Quan-Baffour, 2015). Each
player takes a turn by taking out all marbles from one hole on his/her side of the board,
and placing all the pebbles, one after the other, into consecutive holes in an anticlockwise
direction until all the pebbles are used (Owusu-Mensah & Quan-Baffour, 2015). Players have
to capture seeds/pebbles only from the opponent’s side of the board game (Owusu-Mensah
& Quan-Baffour, 2015; Powell & Temple, 2001). A capture occurs when a player drops his/
her last seed in an opponent’s hole that contains one or two seeds, enabling the player to
also gain the seeds of all the preceding holes if they contain two or three seeds (Owusu-
Mensah & Quan-Baffour, 2015; Powell & Temple, 2001). Players should also not scoop up
seeds from all the opponent’s holes to allow the game to continue (Powell & Temple, 2001).
The Oware Society website explains that this game was so engrained in Ghanaian society
that, according to legend, a man and a woman will get married to get more time to play.

Cultural context: purpose and goal of Oware

The goal of the game is to pick as many marbles as possible since the player with more
marbles wins the game (Owusu-Mensah & Quan-Baffour, 2015). The game has only 48 mar-
bles and capturing 25 is sufficient to beat the opponent and win the game (Fishcher, 1998;
Owusu-Mensah & Quan-Baffour, 2015). The game was used by kings in Ghana (Asante)
and sometimes used in coronation ceremonies of kings in some parts of the continent (The
Oware Society, n.d.). It was played and is still played by both genders (male and female),

Figure 1. Oware, adapted from https://owarejam.wordpress.com/about/.

 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 537

by children, and byadults to entertain themselves and socialise (The Oware Society, n.d.)
However, it is important to state that there are two versions or two methods of playing the
game in Ghana: the Abapa method or version, meant for those who have passed the level of
Aneman, and the children’s version of the game, which does not require as many strategic
skills as Abapa (Owusu-Mensah & Quan-Baffour, 2015).

Educational/learning affordance
The description above highlights the educational prospects of Oware game. As described,
in the process of playing Oware each player needs to have at least 25 marbles to win, which
mathematically refers to 24 + 1, or (48: 2) + 1, with 48 being the total number of seeds in
the game, and 24 is half of 48, the total number of seeds. This rule implies and requires
an understanding of basic mathematical concepts such as division or addition. Hence, to
win in the Oware game, one needs to be able to use for example these basic mathematical
concepts, but also to strategise when playing in order to win the game because to win every
player must possess 25 or more pebbles. The rule governing victory evidences that through
game play players acquire mathematical as well as strategic thinking skills as they strategise
to ensure victory over their opponents. Discussing the mathematical concepts embedded
in the game, Powell and Temple (2001) list among others counting, arithmetic operations
and strategic thinking.
Playing Oware also entails anticipating, predicting and identifying moves that can lead
to victory as players take turns, and drop seeds from one hole to another. For instance, the
mechanics of moving/dropping seeds and taking turns involve dealing with a level of uncer-
tainty because a player can predict, but not with certainty, the next moves of the opponent;
complexity since winning is more than just dropping seeds; and it is also about overcoming
obstacles that may emerge from players’ actions/moves in the game. Consequently, Oware play-
ers engage in a problem-solving process, which denotes an understanding and identification of
the challenge/problem they face during the game play, and the conception of ways to solve the
problem (Jonassen & Hung, 2012). The game therefore creates an environment where players
can obtain problem-solving skills, which are considered to be critical learning outcomes for
all learners irrespective of the learning settings (Reimann, Kickmeier-Rust, & Albert, 2013).
Besides the mathematical knowledge, the mechanics and rules of the game allow players
to gain and rehearse through play; selecting which player should begin the game involves
and calls on negotiation, decision-making and communication skills, which can be learned
but also enhanced as players engage with the game. It is therefore not surprising to read that
the game was used by kings to solve marital issues, and during coronation ceremonies (The
Oware Society, n.d.). Hence, the mechanics of picking a player turns the game into an alter-
native space for developing skills useful in different context and situation of players’ lives.
Strategic thinking, problem-solving, communication, decision-making and negotiation are
transferable skills classified as relevant for the twenty-first century (Dede, 2010) that foster
resilience and meaningful learning (Brooks, 1994; Jonassen & Hung, 2012; Schraw, 2001).

Bao game: rules and mechanics

Bao, wood in Kiswhahili, is another board game popular in East Africa (Figure 2), especially
in the coastal region of Kenya, Tanzania, Zanzibar and Malawi (Bao la Kiswahili, n.d.). In
538 R. Y. BAYECK

this game, players start with 32 seeds/pebbles each (total 64) and the game has four rows
of eight holes (Wanderi, 2011). Each player operates on two rows called in Tanzania North
(player operating on the two upper rows), and South for the player with the two lower rows
(Bao, n.d.). Bao has two squared holes used as pebbles’ storage, while all other rows are
circular (Starnes, 2007; Wanderi, 2011). The squared holes can contain more seeds, but these
seeds can only be spread during the game if a player has already gained seeds (de Voogt,
2002). In Zanzibar, each game begins with each player having in stock 22 seeds in stock, and
placing 10 pebbles or seeds in the holes – six seeds in each squared hole, and two seeds in
two holes to the right of each squared hole (Starnes, 2007). However, in the coastal region
of Kenya, both players (mostly males) place six seeds in each squared hole and two other
seeds in three holes to the right of the squared holes in the inner holes (Wanderi, 2011).

Figure 2. Bao, adapted from https://www.omanisilver.com/.

 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 539

Bao has different stages or levels of complexity depending on the country and on players’
strategic choices (Starnes, 2007). Still, the rules and mechanics of the game in this paper
stem from the Tanzanian version of the game play. The game is often played in two phases
with different rules applying to each phase and making the game complex (Conradie &
Engelbrecht, 2006). For instance, the first phase of the game’s basic rules include starting
the game with players taking seeds from their stock and putting them into a hole on their
row with at least one seed (de Voogt, 2002). While distributing seeds, if the last seed falls
in a hole with no seeds on the opposite side the player empties the hole, and places the
content consecutively around holes on the player’s side of the board game in the same
direction (de Voogt, 2002). Yet, the second phase of the game begins when all seeds from
each player are engaged in the game (de Voogt, 2002). Unlike Oware, pebbles in Bao are
not removed from the game because seeds captured from the opponent’s hole are spread
by the players in their own front row (de Voogt, 2002), and a player’s turn ends when the
last seed is dropped into an empty hole (Conradie & Engelbrecht, 2006; de Voogt, 2002). In
this game, contrary to Oware, the decision on which player should start the game is made
when a player correctly guesses the fist in which the opponent holds a seed (The Rules of
Mancala, 2017). Overall, the mechanics of Bao consist of picking seeds/pebbles from one
hole and dropping/spreading them in other holes in a clockwise or anticlockwise direction
one after the other around the player’s two rows (de Voogt, 2002; Starnes, 2007). Captures
for example occur if a player’s last seed falls into a hole that contains at least one seed,
and the opponent has seeds in an adjacent hole (de Voogt, 2002). Yet, some rules exist for
different captures. Seeds captured from the outer two holes on each side of the front rows
are to be placed by players into their own front row in holes with positions similar to the
holes where the capture was made (de Voogt, 2002). However, for captures made from any
of the middle holes, players are free to choose where to place the pebbles (de Voogt, 2002).
It is also important to mention that in the case where a player makes two or more captures
in one turn, or captures seeds in one of the outer holes, the player is required to play in the
direction of the last capture (de Voogt, 2002).

Cultural context: purpose and goal of Bao

The goal of the game is to capture all the front-row seeds of the opponent or to make it
impossible for the opponent to make any move (Wanderi, 2011; Bao, n.d.). Bao can be
played by two or more individuals grouped in teams, and today it is no longer gender spe-
cific (Wanderi, 2011; Bao, n. d.). The game requires players to think carefully and to be very
strategic as any move may lead to their victory. The game is often played for recreational
purposes and to relieve boredom (Wanderi, 2011).

Educational/learning affordance
The Bao game, just like Oware, involves strategy and counting abilities, which are evidenced
by the rules of winning the game. A player wins when she/he can either capture more seeds
than the opponent, or prevent the other player from making any moves. Hence, victory
suggests mathematical and strategic competences. The moves in the game can be made in
counter- clockwise or clockwise directions depending on the player’s last capture. This rule
and mechanic of the game fosters players’ spatial skills, and consequently spatial thinking.
540 R. Y. BAYECK

Spatial thinking is concerned with ‘the location of objects, their shapes, relations to each
other, and the paths they take as they move’ (Newcombe & Frick, 2010, p. 30). The rule that
requires seeds to be moved in different directions, and dictates that a player last capture
influences the direction in which she/he continues to spread seeds is an illustration of spatial
thinking. The location of seeds is important (i.e. object location), the relation between holes
critical (relation to each other), as well as the direction taken by the seeds as players spread
them. It is evident that Bao is a space where players learn to think spatially. Interestingly,
research shows that spatial thinking is as critical as mathematical and verbal thinking for
success in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (Newcombe, 2010).
Another aspect of the mechanics of the game that can lead to the development of per-
spective taking – prediction of what will be seen after a physical action (Newcombe & Frick,
2010) – is players guessing in which fist any of the players has hidden a seed during the
process of selecting a player to start the game. By speculating, players actively analyse the
opponent’s strategy, and in the process consider their opponents’ perspective or viewpoint
(Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001). Perspective taking is strongly linked to negotiation skills
because individuals able to uncover hidden agreements create and demand more resources
at the negotiation table (Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008; Galinsky & Mussweiler,
2001). Moreover, perspective taking is shown to be a powerful instrument of social harmony
(Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005). Thus, through the game, players understand social harmony,
and consequently acquire social skills.
The process of selecting which player starts the game, and particularly the rule of giving
players the freedom to spread seeds as they wish after a capture in any of the middle holes,
implies decision-making, and critical thinking, which in this context refers to the ability to
evaluate situation in the game, and determine next moves based on the current situation
(evidence) in the game (West, Toplak, & Stanovich, 2008).The game is certainly a space in
which to enhance strategic thinking and mathematical skills, and build critical thinking
skills since they need to objectively analyse their moves and those of the opponent to form
a judgement. Critical thinking and strategic thinking skills for example were identified by
the National Education Association (2010) as important skills for students to succeed in a
fast-changing and global society.

Moruba game: rules and mechanics

This board game, Moruba (Figure 3) is popular in South Africa and especially in the
Limpopo province of the country (Wanderi, 2011). The game is a four-row game of 12
holes (Mosimege & Ismael, 2007). Yet, Wanderi (2011) specifies that in the Moruba game
the number of holes also depends on the total players, and can vary from four holes per
row to 36 holes per row. Players do have the flexibility to add as many holes as needed.
Hence, the holes can vary from four to 48 holes per row and players can increase the num-
ber of holes as long as they form multiples of four, and the columns can be divided by four
(Nkopodi, 2001). Additionally, the number of stones/marbles in the game is also based on
the number of holes, which can be dug in the ground in the absence of a wooden board
(Nkopodi, 2001; Wanderi, 2011).
Moruba is played in a counter-clockwise direction, which makes this game’s mechanics
similar to Oware, but different from Bao, which is played in both directions (counter-clock-
wise and clockwise). To start, two pebbles or Morula are placed in each hole making each
 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 541

Figure 3. Moruba, adapted from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/39602/moruba.

player begin with a total of 32 seeds for a Moruba board of eight holes per row since each
player owns two rows. Play begins with a player taking two stones on his/her side, and
distributing them consecutively one after the other into holes on his/her side of the board
(Mkhonto & Cloete, 2010). A player’s turn ends when the last pebble is dropped into an
empty hole, but when the last seed falls into a hole with other seeds, the player’s turn con-
tinues (Mkhonto & Cloete, 2010).
Dropping one’s last stone into an empty hole gives room to make gains if there are seeds
in the hole directly opposed to this hole on the opponent’s side (Mkhonto & Cloete, 2010).
There are two ways of winning the game according to Mkhonto and Cloete (2010): (a) a
player should capture all the seeds of his opponent, (b) in the case that players still have
single stones in some holes on the board, the player with most seeds wins the game.

Cultural context: purpose and goal of Moruba

Mosimege (2006) explains that the game is mostly played by men, who used it during war.
Though the game can be played by boys and girls today, men utilised the game to strategise
and prepare for different events such as wars (Wanderi, 2011). During play, advice, ideas,
language idioms and terminology were shared, highlighting the social aspect of the game
(Wanderi, 2011). In other words, players learned and devised strategies that could help dur-
ing wars and community-related challenges. The length of the board game and the number
of holes distinguish Moruba from other board game (Mosimege, 2006; Wanderi, 2011).

Educational/learning affordance
Moruba as described above was used during wars to communicate strategies about wars,
and also to discuss issues affecting the community. The relationship between the holes and
the number of players indicates a need for players to be good at mathematics (Wanderi,
542 R. Y. BAYECK

2011). An example of the link between the game and mathematical abilities is exhibited
in the rule addressing the flexible number of holes in the game. Indeed, players can add as
many holes as needed given that the sum of holes on the rows is a multiple of four, and holes
on the columns are divisible by four (Nkopodi, 2001). Consequently, being able to make
addition and division while playing Moruba is part of the game play. The game is a space
for learning mathematical concepts as winning also means capturing all the opponent’s
seeds. The relationship between players and the number of holes also suggests discussions/
negotiations among players on the number of holes. The mechanic of turn taking, as is the
case in previously described board games, allows players to learn and build patience.

Morabaraba game: rules and mechanics

Morabaraba (Figure 4) or Umlabala in Sesotho and Xhosa languages of South Africa, and
Muravarava in the Ronga language of Mozambique, or Shax in Somalia, is a three-row board
game that is played by two individuals in three stages (Jama, 2000; Mosimege & Ismael,
2007). Each gamer starts with an empty board and 12 marbles/stones/cows of identical
colour she/he may lose or gain at different game levels/stages (Mkhonto & Cloete, 2010).
The game is mostly played by men, young and old (Jama, 2000).
Each game level involves specific strategies and rules. According to some of the rules
uncovered by Mosimege and Ismael (2007), in the first stage of the game, players alterna-
tively place one stone at a time on the board with the intent to be the first to place three
in the row in a vertical, diagonal or horizontal position. Stones/cows can only be placed
on empty/unoccupied holes/circles on the board, and each time a row of three stones is
formed, a stone of the opponent is taken (Mosimege & Ismael, 2007). However, a player’s
three-in-a-row stones cannot be gained/shot by the opponent if other stones are available
on the board (Mkhonto & Cloete, 2010). Only one stone/cow can be captured/shot at a
time, and the same ones will not be played again in the game (Mkhonto & Cloete, 2010).
At the second stage, the stones placed on the board can be moved from one hole/circle
to an adjacent circle/hole to create a row of three, which can be broken by players to either

Figure 4. Morabaraba, adapted from https://www.gamesfromeverywhere.com.au.

 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 543

create new lines or reposition their stones (Mkhonto & Cloete, 2010). Because pebbles
can repeatedly be moved to the same hole, a player’s row of three can be captured/shot
(Mkhonto & Cloete, 2010). Nevertheless, when a player has only three pebbles left, she/
he can move this pebble to any unoccupied hole on the board which is not adjacent to
the current hole, without worrying about the lines (Mkhonto & Cloete, 2010; Mosimege
& Ismael, 2007). Interestingly, applying this rule means that the game is at its third stage
(Mosimege & Ismael, 2007).
Victory is achieved when an opponent cannot move any stones, or when an opponent
has lost all but two of his/her marbles (Mkhonto & Cloete, 2010; Mosimege & Ismael, 2007).
Even though the game is played on specially produced board, boards drawn in the sand,
stones or even bottle tops are also used for game play (Mosimege, 2006).

Cultural context: purpose and goal of Morabaraba

Historically, the game was meant to teach strategic and tactical skills to young boys on how
to deal with cattle in the south of Africa, and to impart young warriors with cattle-raids
skills (Russouw, 2002). In addition, chiefs in Southern Africa used Morabaraba to select
from among the best players advisers on traditional councils (Russouw, 2002). In the East
of Africa, the game was a communication tool between different clans or among individ-
uals (Jama, 2000). Players used metaphors during game play to describe the movement of
stones, to communicate a larger plan of action, or to gather more information about an
issue (Jama, 2000).

Educational/learning affordance
Morabaraba offers multiple educational/learning avenues, and some of these learning oppor-
tunities are linked to the mechanics and rules of the game. Players of Morabaraba cannot
capture more than one stone/pebble at a time from their adversary. This rule incidentally
teaches players values such as empathy and compassion. Capturing all the pebbles of a player
does not give the opponent an opportunity to continue the game, and to find strategies that
can prolong his/her involvement with the game for example. Thus, players understand the
meaning of ownership, loss and survival in this environment. The rule governing victory
in the game leads to a similar learning opportunity, besides strategic skills, because loss is
acknowledged when a player can no longer make moves, or is left with only two pebbles,
and not when a player has lost all his/her marbles/pebbles. Spatial thinking is promoted in
the game through the mechanics allowing players to move their pebbles to adjacent empty
holes, or to any other hole provided she/he is left with only three stones/pebbles.
Mathematical skills are also enhanced because players have to place one pebble at a time
out of the 12 pebbles when starting the game. Counting abilities are therefore necessary.
The fact that a player can position his/her three-in-a-row pebbles vertically, horizontally
and diagonally adds to players’ spatial thinking skills, while creating a space for players
to learn basic geometry on the orientation of objects (e.g. vertical or horizontal). Playing
Morabaraba invites gamers to use metaphors to describe plans of actions, or movement of
stones. This encourages language acquisition as well as computational thinking. Wing (2011)
defines computational thinking as ‘the thought processes involved in formulating problems
and their solutions so that the solutions are represented in a form that can be effectively
544 R. Y. BAYECK

carried out by an information-processing agent [i.e. a human or a machine]’ (p. 1). The use
of metaphors to describe strategies shows a high level of abstraction, key to computational
thinking (Grover & Pea, 2013), because players in their metaphors decide what details of
their plan of action to highlight and ignore (Wing, 2008). Moreover, the description of
stone/pebble moves through metaphors also shows players’ ability to represent information
in different ways, and turns the game into a potential multimodal-learning environment
known to increase attention and facilitate learning (Sankey, Birch, & Gardiner, 2010). The
fact that the game was used as a recruitment tool by kings in Southern Africa as reported
by some researchers (Russouw, 2002) highlights the learning potential of the game, the
transferability of skills obtained through game play to the real world and the conception of
games as learning spaces in Africa.

Omweso or Mweso game: rules and mechanics

Omweso (Figure 5) is a game played in Uganda, known as Igisoro in Rwanda, and as Urubugu
in Burundi (Nsimbi, 1968; Belgian Development Agency, 2013). In Sudan, the game is
called Aweet, Kombe in Namibia, Mongale in Kenya, Mongola in Mombasa, and Kiela in
Angola (Lubega, 2014).
Omweso is a game with four rows of 32 holes and a total 64 seeds/pebbles (BDC, 2013).
The game is often played on a board made of wood though there are instances where players
would dig holes in the ground, and play with pebbles or seeds from another tree instead
of the brown seeds of the Omuyiki tree as in Uganda (Nsimbi, 1968). The 64 seeds/pebbles
are divided equally between two players or teams of players with each player/team owning
the two rows of 16 holes next to him/her or the team (Nsimbi, 1968).
The game rules and mechanics are multiple, but only a few will be discussed in this sec-
tion. The game starts with players distributing all their 64 seeds freely and strategically in
different holes on the board (Lubega, 2014). Players decide who begins to play, and before
any capture is made players also have the freedom to drop one or two seeds/pebbles in
one hole (Nsimbi, 1968). Nsimbi (1968) describes different type of seed groupings: ‘senior
groupings’ which have in one hole more than 16 seeds, and ‘junior groupings’ which do
not have more than 16 seeds in any hole. In the Omweso game, each grouping approach has
rules that dictate the game play of the player or team that chooses that grouping strategy
(Nsimbi, 1968). Yet, the popular way of starting the game is to place four seeds in each
of the holes in the back row (Lubega, 2014). It is worth noting that players’ placement or
grouping of seeds is done in order to have an advantage over the opponent (Nsimbi, 1968).

Figure 5. Mweso, drawn by the author.

 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 545

Seeds are spread in an anti-clockwise direction (Nsimbi, 1968; Lubega, 2014), and it is
only when a player can capture from the leftmost holes of the board that she/he can drop
seeds in a clockwise direction (Lubega, 2014; Wernham, 2001). The game is won when
the opponent has only single stones in his/her holes, or empty holes, and as such can
no longer move, or when a player captures seeds in both ends of the board in one move
(Wernham, 2001). In Omweso game play, a hole with a single stone or pebble cannot be
played (Wernham, 2001). Captures happen when a player’s last pebble falls into a hole
where there are others (Lubega, 2014; Wernham, 2001). Yet, if the two holes on the oppo-
nent’s side have pebbles, the player captures them as well (Lubega, 2014), dropping his/her
captured seeds one after the other into consecutive holes starting from the hole where the
turn originated (Lubega, 2014).

Cultural context: purpose and goal of Omweso

In the past this game was played by men; with the exception of princesses, and kings’ wives,
ordinary women did not play Mweso (Nsimbi, 1968). However, today the game is played
by all. The goal of the game is to capture as many pebbles as possible from the opponent,
preventing the opponent from playing again (Lubega, 2014; (Nsimbi, 1968). Historically,
though, Mweso was part of kings’ coronation processes in Uganda and was intended to
equip the incoming kings with strategies and wisdom that would prevent his subjects from
deceiving him (Nsimbi, 1968). Kings were to learn from experts in Mweso, and just like these
experts use these tactics to rule (Nsimbi, 1968). The game also served as a space for chiefs
and clan elders to learn about different issues and discuss various topics while playing; a
space to meet and know people personally; and an appropriate environment to select men
for leadership positions in the community (Nsimbi, 1968).

Educational/learning affordance
The mechanics of Mweso show that the game is a learning environment. The distribution of
seeds suggests counting, and knowledge of mathematical concepts like division and addi-
tion. All the seeds (64 in total) have to be distributed equally among players (32 for each
player or team), who in turn will play to gain more seeds than their opponents. The game
also builds up strategic thinking since winning involves either restricting the opponents’
moves, or capturing seeds on both extreme holes of the board in one turn. Decision-making
is seen in the process of negotiating on who will start the game, and in the arrangement of
seeds on the board at the beginning of the game.
Discussion among leaders and interactions among people that lead to deeper knowledge
are examples of mechanics around the game that foster communication and social skills.
Mweso creates an environment where members of the community learn from each other
(knowledge sharing), but also build deep and meaningful relationships.

Board games: similarities and differences

An interesting factor about the games discussed in this paper is the possibility for gamers
to use the ground as a play board and other materials such as stones, dried palm nuts or
546 R. Y. BAYECK

bottle tops (Mosimege, 2006; Owusu-Mensah & Quan-Baffour, 2015). In this regard, these
games are affordable because players can easily acquire the materials needed to play.
With regard to the skills and cognitive processes these games promote, similarities and
differences exist based on the game mechanics. For instance, playing these games requires
mathematical skills and as such all promote mathematical skills. However, the mechanics of
the game connected to mathematical skills differ and are sometimes more complex in some
games than others. Hence, in the Oware, Moruba, Bao and Mweso games, the mechanics
of seed distribution in different holes stimulates the learning of mathematical concepts.
However, seeds in Oware are spread in an anticlockwise direction, while in Bao they are
distributed in counter-clockwise and clockwise directions, adding a level of complexity to
the game, and involving other skills such as spatial thinking skills. In Morabaraba, mathe-
matical concepts are developed by placing marbles/seeds on the board alternatively.
The winning rule in each game also fosters mathematical skills, and particularly in Oware,
where capturing more 25 or more seeds means victory. Turn taking is another aspect of
the mechanics common to all these games, yet in Moruba and Mweso a player’s turn can
last longer because of a rule that ends a turn only when a player’s last pebble/seed falls into
an empty hole. Though turn taking applies to all these games and to some extent requires
patience, based on the characteristics of this mechanic in each game, it can be argued that
patience is intensely cultivated in Moruba and Mweso games.
Strategic thinking and problem-solving skills are embedded in the winning rules of
these games. In Oware having 25 or more seeds implies using different techniques to win
the game. Still, in Morabaraba and Mweso games, the rule is a little bit more complex and
requires the use of more complex strategies, for winning means restricting the opponent’s
moves, or capturing seeds until the opponent is left with only two seeds (Morabaraba), single
seeds in all the holes or has had seeds in both ends of his/her side of the board captured
in one turn (Mweso).
A review of the games’ mechanics evidences some similarities in the cognitive outcomes
of the games, and differences in rules and mechanics that result in these cognitive and
psychological outcomes are shown in Table 1.

Implications
In view of the learning potential discussed above, some authors such as Powell and Temple
(2001) and Owusu-Mensah and Quan-Baffour (2015) proposed creative ways of intro-
ducing the game of Oware for example into classroom instruction. Owusu-Mensah and
Quan-Baffour (2015) suggest that students play the game in the classroom to learn basic
mathematical ideas such as counting, shapes and logical reasoning. In light of the mechanics
explained in this paper, there are other ways to integrate these games into the classroom.
Besides having students play all these games to acquire mathematical concepts, an
instructor in a maths class can have students draw the game of Morabaraba and calculate
how many rows of three pebbles in a row can be created with a total of 24 stones. This
activity can help students practise division and multiplication. Such activity can facilitate
students’ understanding of these mathematical concepts because by drawing Morabaraba
students will engage in a visual representation of the problem, and thus be able to represent
the mathematical ideas and problems in visual forms. According to research, visualisation
Table 1. Review of the five board games and learning outcomes.
Number of seeds/pieces/ Direction of moves in game
Game Number of holes Number of rows marbles play
Bao 32 4 64 Clockwise & anticlockwise
direction
Mechanics/Rules: Outcomes:
Drop seeds freely in any hole after a capture in the middles Decision-making
holes Critical thinking
Spread seeds in counter-clockwise or clockwise direction Spatial thinking
based on last capture
Share seeds among players (32/player) Mathematical skills
Capture seeds if last seed falls into a hole with at least one
seed
Turn taking Patience and respect
Guess in which fist a seed is hidden to choose a player to Perspective taking
start the game
Oware 12 2 48 Anticlockwise
Mechanics/Rules: Outcomes:
Distribute seeds one by one in consecutive holes Mathematical skills/thinking
Capture 25 or more Mathematical skills, Strategic thinking
seeds to win Problem-solving skills
Turn taking Patience and respect for others
Playing in counter-clockwise direction Spatial thinking/skills
Agree on who should start the game Communication, decision-making, and
­negotiation skills
Moruba 12, 36 or more 4 Varies Counter-clockwise
Mechanics/Rules: Outcomes:
Drop seeds one by one consecutively Mathematical skills
Capture all the opponent’s seeds or possess more seeds Mathematical skills, strategic thinking
Play in counter-clockwise and clockwise direction Spatial thinking/skills
Turn ending only when last seeds falls into an empty hole Patience
Turn taking Respect
Number of holes dependent on number of players Mathematical skills, decision-making
communication
CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION

Morabaraba Do not have holes 3 12 Play by placing pieces strategi-

cally to form rows of three
Mechanics/Rules: Outcomes:
(Continued)
547
Table 1. (Continued).
548

Number of seeds/pieces/ Direction of moves in game

Game Number of holes Number of rows marbles play
Placing pebbles on the board one by one Mathematical skills
Capture all the opponents’ seeds but two, or preventing the Mathematical skills
opponent from any moves Strategic thinking
Problem-solving skills
R. Y. BAYECK

Turn taking Patience, respect

No capture of more than one seed of the opponent at a Empathy
time
Move pebbles to adjacent and unoccupied holess Spatial thinking
Form vertical, horizontal and diagonal three-in-a-row line
Use metaphors to describe moves of stones and plans of Language skills
actions Computational thinking
Omweso 32 4 64 Anticlockwise and clockwise
Mechanics/Rules: Outcomes:
Distribution of seeds among players (32/player) Mathematical skills
Spread seeds in anticlockwise direction one by one
Capture when last seed falls in a hole containing other
seeds
Drop seeds in a clockwise direction if capture is possible Spatial thinking Strategic thinking
from the leftmost holes
Prevent the opponent making any move (victory)
 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 549

in mathematics leads to a deep and meaningful learning of mathematical concepts (Walker,

Winner, Hetland, Simmons, & Goldsmith, 2011).
In a programming course, students can be challenged to reproduce some of the mechanics
of the game such as spreading seeds in a clockwise direction, as is the case with Mweso, to
capture seeds on the opponent’s side. And in a biology course, the repetitive moves in the
Bao or Oware game can be used to explain the cell cycle. The cycle of a cell includes series
of events occurring in a cell that lead to its division and replication (Lodish et al., 2003).
For example, the dropping of one seed in a hole can be likened to the interphase, which is
the phase when a cell accumulates nutrients, and doubles its genome (Lodish et al., 2003).

Conclusion
To discuss the potential learning or educational implications of African board games, this
study reviewed five traditional board games using the game design schema framework
to uncover some of the game rules and mechanics and their learning/educational impli-
cations. The mechanics of African board games discussed in this paper demonstrate that
African board games are learning spaces worth investigating for their learning potential.
Their physical appearance and cultural context make these games different from digital or
video games. Yet, the mechanics of these games show that they could be viable spaces for
learning even in classroom. The challenge is, then, for educators to find ways to integrate
these games into the curriculum.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Arnab, S., Lim, T., Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., de Freitas, S., Louchart, S., & De Gloria, A. (2015).
Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis: Mapping learning and game
mechanics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 391–411.
Augustyn, F. J., Jr., & Bronner, S. J. (2013). Games and toys. In S. J. Bronner (Ed.), Encyclopedia of American
folklife (pp. 485–493). Armonk, NY: Sharpe Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/
i.do?id=GALE%7CCX7035100137&v=2.1&u=psucic&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=
292b3371a49f4dc94a13b0c829a1e23f
Bao la Kiswahili. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://mancala.wikia.com/wiki/Bao_la_Kiswahili
Belgian Development Agency. (2013). Time out, a playful break with colleagues. Retrieved from
http://www.btcctb.org/en/news/time-out-playful-break-colleagues
Berland, M., & Lee, V. (2011). Collaborative strategic board games as a site for distributed computational
thinking. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 1(2), 65–81.
Brooks, R. B. (1994). Children at risk: Fostering resilience and hope. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 64(4), 545–553.
Conradie, J., & Engelbrecht, A. P. (2006). Training Bao game-playing agents using coevolutionary
particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of 2006 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence
and Games. Reno/Lake Tahoe, NV, USA, 67–74.
Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.),
21st century skills (pp. 51–76). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
550 R. Y. BAYECK

Dyer, R. (2013). Games in higher education: Opportunities, expectations, and challenges of curriculum
integration. In S. de Freitas, M. Ott, M. M. Popescu, & I. Stanescu (Eds.), New pedagogical approaches
in game enhanced learning (pp. 38–59). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Fishcher, J. (1998). A preparation of indoor games in Ghana. African Diaspora ISPs. Paper 1. Retrieved
from https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/african_diaspora_isp/1
Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering
social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2),
109–124.
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the
head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations.
Psychological Science, 19(4), 378–384.
Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and
negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657–669.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning, 2(1), 5–16.
Gerdes, P. (1994). On mathematics in the history of Sub-Saharan Africa. Historia Mathematica,
21(3), 345–376.
Gerdes, P. (2008). Exploration of technologies, emerging from African cultural practices in mathematics
education. Centre for Mozambican Studies and Enoscience. Maputo, Mozambique: Universidade
Pedagogica.
Gobet, F., de Voogt, A., & Retschitzki, J. (2004). Moves in mind: The psychology of board games. New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12 a review of the state of the field.
Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.
Jama, J. M. (2000). Shax: The preferred game of our camel-herders and other traditional African
entertainments. Rome: Sun Moon Lake.
Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2012). Problem solving. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences
of learning (pp. 2680–2683). New York, NY: Springer.
Lodish, H., Berk, A., Matsudaira, P., Kaiser, C. A., Krieger, M., Scott, M. P., … Darnell, J. (2003).
Molecular cell biology. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Lubega, H. (2014, October 20). Mweso: A Chwezi game in modern times. Retrieved from
https://www.monitor.co.ug/artsculture/Reviews/Mweso–A-Chwezi-game-in-modern-
times/-/691232/2492932/-/item/0/-/9is1or/-/index.html
Lyoka, P. A. (2007). Questioning the role of children’s indigenous games of Africa on development of
fundamental movement skills: A preliminary review. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 15(3), 343–364.
Mawere, M. (2012). The struggle of African indigenous knowledge systems in an age of globalization: A
case for children’s traditional games in south-eastern Zimbabwe. Bamenda: Langaa RPCIG Publishers.
Mkhonto, T. K., & Cloete, J. (2010). Indigenous games rule book. Pretoria: SA: Sport and Recreation
South Africa
Mosimege, M. (2006). Indigenous knowledge systems and ethnomathematics. In B. Barton (Ed.),
Proceedings of the third ethnomathematics conference (pp. 12–16). Auckland: University of Auckland.
Mosimege, M., & Ismael, A. (2004). Ethnomathematical studies of Indigenous games: Examples from
Southern Africa. In F. Favilli (Ed.), Ethnomathematics and mathematics education: Proceedings
of the 10th International Congress of Mathematics Education Copenhagen. Discussion group 15
ethnomathematics (pp. 119–137). Pisa: Tipografia Editrice Pisana.
Mosimege, M., & Ismael, A. (2007). Ethnomathematical studies on indigenous games: Examples from
Southern Africa. In O. C. Favilli (Ed.), Ethnomathematics and mathematics education: Proceedings
of the 10th International Congress of Mathematics Education, Copenhagen (pp. 119–137). Pisa:
Tipografia Editrice Pisana.
Mutema, F. (2013). Shona traditional children’s games and songs as a form of indigenous knowledge: An
endangered genre. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 15(3), 59–64. doi:10.9790/0837-
1535964
National Education Association. (2010). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An
educator’s guide to the “four Cs”. Retrieved from https://www.nea.org/tools/52217.htm
 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 551

Newcombe, N. S. (2010). Picture this: Increasing math and science learning by improving spatial
thinking. American Educator, 34(2), 29–35.
Newcombe, N. S., & Frick, A. (2010). Early education for spatial intelligence: Why, what, and how.
Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(3), 102–111.
Nkopodi, N. (2001). Using games to promote multicultural mathematics. In A. Rogerson (Ed.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on new ideas in mathematics education (pp. 283–287).
Queensland, Australia: Mathematics Education into the 21st century project.
Nkopodi, N., & Mosimege, M. (2009). Incorporating the indigenous game of morabaraba in the
learning of mathematics. South African Journal of Education, 29(3), 377–392.
Nsimbi, M. B. (1968). Omweso, a game people play in Uganda. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.
Nyoni, T., & Nyoni, M. (2013). The form and content of children’s poetry and games on a kaleidoscopic
cultural terrain. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 233–243.
Nyota, S., & Mapara, J. (2008). Shona traditional children’s games and play: Songs as indigenous ways
of knowing. Journal of Pan African Studies, 2(4), 184–202.
Onyefulu, I. (2000). Ebele’s favourite: A book of African games. London: Frances Lincoln.
Owusu-Mensah, J., & Quan-Baffour, K. P. (2015). Demystifying the myth of mathematics learning
at the foundation phase: The role of Akan indigenous games (challenges and opportunities for
indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) in the education system). International Journal of Educational
Sciences, 8(2), 313–318. Retrieved from http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/IJES/IJES-08-
0-000-15-Web/IJES-08-2-000-15-Abst-PDF/IJES-8-2-313-15-440-Owusu/IJES-8-2-313-15-440-
Owusu-Tx[8].pdf
Powell, A., & Temple, O. (2001). Seeding ethnomathematics with Oware: Sankofa. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 7(6), 369–375. Retrieved from http://www.dm.unipi.it/~favilli/Ethnomathematics_
Proceedings_ICME10.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Prensky, M. (2006). Don't bother me, Mom, I'm learning!: How computer and video games are preparing
your kids for 21st century success and how you can help! St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.
Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2008). Promoting broad and stable improvements in low-income
children’s numerical knowledge through playing number board games. Child Development, 79(2),
375–394.
Reimann, P., Kickmeier-Rust, M., & Albert, D. (2013). Problem solving learning environments and
assessment: A knowledge space theory approach. Computers & Education, 64, 183–193.
Retalis, S. (2008). Creating adaptive e-learning board games for school settings using the ELG
environment. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 14(17), 2897–2908. Retrieved from http://
jucs.org/jucs_14_17/creating_adaptive_elearning_board/jucs_14_17_2897_2908_retalis.pdf
Roux, C. J., Burnett, C., & Hollander, W. J. (2008). Curriculum enrichment through indigenous
Zulu games. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 30(1),
89–103.
Russouw, S. (2002, September 26). Morabaraba? Get on board! Retrieved from https://www.
southafrica.info/about/sport/features/morabaraba.htm#.Vs6GLE2M2Uk
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Sankey, M., Birch, D., & Gardiner, M. (2010). Engaging students through multimodal learning
environments: The journey continues. In C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego (Eds.),
Ascilite, curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future (pp. 852–863). Sydney:
Ascilite.
Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition
in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 3–16). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Simons, J. (2007). Narrative, games, and theory. Game Studies, 7(1). Retrieved from https://
gamestudies.org/0701/articles/simons
Starnes, D. (2007). Bao game-rules. Retrieved from https://deanstarnes.com/Roam_pages/bao_rules.
pdf
Tatira, L. (2014). Traditional games of Shona children. Journal of Pan African Studies, 7(4), 156–175.
552 R. Y. BAYECK

The Oware Society. (n.d). Oware – Played all over the world. Retrieved from https://www.oware.
org/history.asp
The Rules of Mancala. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.mastersofgames.com/rules/mancala-rules.
htm
Townshend, P. (1982). Bao (Mankala): The Swahili ethic in African idiom. Paideuma, 28, 175–191.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41409882
de Voogt, A. (2001). Mancala: Games That Count. Expedition, 43(1), 38. Retrieved from http://www.
penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/43-1/Mancala.pdf
de Voogt, A., Dunn-Vaturi, A. E., & Eerkens, J. W. (2013). Cultural transmission in the ancient Near
East: Twenty squares and fifty-eight holes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(4), 1715–1730.
de Voogt, A. J. (2002). Reproducing board game positions: Western Chess and African Bao. Swiss
Journal of Psychology, 61(4), 221–233.
Walker, C., Winner, E., Hetland, L., Simmons, S., & Goldsmith, L. (2011). Visual thinking: Art students
have an advantage in geometric reasoning. Creative Education, 2, 22–26.
Wanderi, M. P. (2011). The Indigenous games of the people of the coastal region of Kenya: A cultural
and educational appraisal. Nazareth, Ethiopia: OSSREA.
Wernham, B. (2001, April 21–25). Omweso: The Royal mancala game of Uganda (Boardgames in
Academia V). Paper presented at Board Game Studies Colloquium V, Barcelona, Spain. Retrieved
from https://www.reocities.com/omweso/board_games_in_academia_v_omweso.pdf
West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical
thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(4), 930–941.
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society A - Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.
Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking – What and why? The Link magazine,
Spring. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Retrieved from https://link.cs.cmu.edu/article.
php?a=600
Zimmerman, E. (2004). Narrative, interactivity, play, and games: Four naughty concepts in need of
discipline. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First person: New media as story, performance,
game (pp. 154–164). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Copyright of Cambridge Journal of Education is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.