I am struck by one of his most recent posts (at RealClearEducation, an invaluable clearinghouse of opinion): "Don't Blame the Internet: We Can Still Think and Read Critically, We Just Don't Want To." 

After noting that we do not yet have enough data to make decisive statements on the subject (despite alarmist op-ed pieces in various publications), Willingham suggests that the most plausible likelihood is laziness on our part, not a Web-induced reduction in our ability to read deeply and think carefully.

In short, we may be blaming the tool and its proximity for our failure of will. I think about this in light of the deep concentration and immersive experience I see occurring among learners participating in Mouse.

Granted that my evidence is mostly qualitative and the sample size small, I believe our situated, tactile approach curbs intellectual laziness and promotes the desire to concentrate and see a task through to self-identified completion.

Soldering circuits and then seeing the bulb light up, or designing an object using CAD-CAM software and then fabricating it, or modding an off-the-shelf device so that it does what you want it to do....the motivation is intrinsic, the outcomes determined not by external instruction but by your own sense of horizon.

I believe we can transfer the depth of engagement from the material object-oriented project to the reading-based analysis of the same. One signpost in that direction: I notice that avid gamers pore over exceptionally detailed and lengthy documentation, rules explanations and histories of the worlds they will play in.

Perhaps, we should accept as suitable classroom work a close reading of that multivolume discourse on the intricacies of Magic: The Gathering or The Legend of Zelda ....

Daniel Rabuzzi is the Executive Director of Mouse.