Teach the reasoning.
Use one identity case as a shared problem-solving experience. Ask students to justify a decision with evidence, then apply their reasoning to a new situation.
Set a focused objective.
By the end of this session, students should identify a claim, compare two independent sources, and justify an identity decision. Finishing the campaign is not required.
Before students arrive.
- Open the game in the browser students will use. Test controls, sound, dialogue and saved progress.
- Use a separate demonstration profile and have screenshots available as a backup.
- Explain the optional research prompt. Participation does not depend on logging.
- Prepare the worksheet and exit ticket. The game does not provide a teacher dashboard or roster.
Protect the final discussion.
| Time | Activity | Facilitator move |
|---|---|---|
| 0–5 | Frame | What makes a claim trustworthy? |
| 5–10 | Controls | Model movement and one conversation. Stop before the answer. |
| 10–25 | Investigate | Pairs collect and compare sources; switch roles halfway. |
| 25–35 | Discuss | Compare two explanations and identify independent evidence. |
| 35–45 | Transfer | Apply the reasoning to a fictional campus IT message. |
| 45–50 | Exit ticket | Collect a justified decision and one change in reasoning. |
Make the pair’s thinking visible.
The navigator operates the game. The evidence checker questions the claim and records sources, observations, and alternative explanations. Switch roles halfway through. For motor or reading barriers, offer shared controls or a screenshot discussion route.
Which objective are you following? Which source have you checked? What remains uncertain? Point to Help or a hint, then ask what the feedback changes.
Debrief, then change the setting.
Ask which source is independent, what could be copied or misunderstood, and which new evidence would change a decision.
Fictional transfer prompt: an unexpected message claims to come from campus IT and asks for a password reset. Identify the claim, name a separate trusted channel, and explain what you would verify. Discuss where the village analogy stops being useful.
Assess an explanation, not speed.
| Criterion | Points | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | 0–2 | Identifies what is being asserted. |
| Independent evidence | 0–2 | Evaluates relevant sources and their independence. |
| Justification / transfer | 0–2 | Connects evidence to a defensible decision or new situation. |
0 = missing or unsupported; 1 = partial or unclear; 2 = clear, relevant, and explained. Do not grade combat speed, completion speed, or random hint drops.
Optional CSV export is per browser and requires logging. A partial lesson may end before the game’s post-check, so use your own exit ticket. Explain any collection and handling through your institution’s process.
Materials for the session.
- 12 facilitation cards · PDF
- Printable evidence worksheet & exit ticket
- Instructor subtitles · SRT
- Both transcripts · Markdown
- Detailed video storyboards
- Complete classroom kit · ZIP
Read the complete video transcript
Teach the reasoning, not the speed
Use Cipherfell as a shared problem-solving experience. Students should justify a security decision with evidence, not race to finish the game. This fifty-minute lesson focuses on the first identity case, with optional extensions for later classes. The teacher tutorial prepares you to facilitate that discussion.
Choose a manageable learning target
Set one observable goal: identify a claim, compare two independent sources, and justify an identity decision. Start with Case One. Later cases explore secrecy, access, information leakage, forged orders, integrity, and recovery. Spread the full campaign across several sessions.
Prepare the room and demo profile
Before class, open the live game in the browser students will use. Test movement, dialogue, sound, and saved progress. Use a separate demo profile for projection. Prepare a screenshot backup and set an appropriate volume. The game stores progress locally; it does not provide a teacher dashboard or a class roster.
Keep logging optional
Explain the optional research prompt before students start. They can choose No and still play. Logging and short knowledge checks are separate from the classroom task. If your course collects exports, explain the purpose and handling in advance and use the institution's process. Do not equate opting into logging with participation credit.
Run the 50-minute arc
Use the first five minutes to frame the evidence question. Spend five minutes on controls, then fifteen on paired investigation. Use ten minutes to compare decisions, ten to connect the reasoning to a new security situation, and five for an exit ticket. If play runs long, preserve the discussion and reflection.
Model the process; withhold the answer
Project a brief think-aloud. Read the stranger's claim, then ask what would check it independently. Demonstrate movement, one conversation, and the Case board. Stop before selecting the final answer. Invite students to predict their next evidence source and explain why it might help, then send pairs to investigate.
Use paired roles and a simple worksheet
Work in pairs: one navigator and one evidence checker. Record the claim, source, observation, and an alternative explanation. Switch roles halfway through. Collect a short justification, not just a success screenshot, so students can demonstrate their reasoning without finishing the case.
Support a stuck learner
When a pair stalls, ask which objective they are following, which source they have checked, and what remains uncertain. Point them to Help or an available hint. Ask them to explain the feedback before retrying. For motor or reading barriers, offer shared controls and a screenshot discussion route. Check any AI-tutor answer against the evidence.
Debrief the evidence
Invite two pairs with different reasoning to explain their decisions. Ask which evidence was independent, what could be copied or misunderstood, and what new information would change their minds. Compare the quality of their justification. A correct choice without a defensible explanation is an invitation to investigate further, not proof of mastery.
Make the security transfer explicit
Now change the setting. An unexpected message claims to come from campus IT and asks for a password reset. Ask students to name the claim, identify a separate trusted channel, and explain what they would verify. Then discuss where the village analogy breaks down. The goal is transferable reasoning, not treating game rules as a complete security procedure.
Assess explanations and handle exports
Use a six-point exit ticket: two points each for the claim, independent evidence, and a justified decision. Do not grade combat speed or random drops. CSV export requires logging and is per browser. Your lesson may end before the game's post-check, so use your own assessment.
Close the lesson; plan an extension
Collect the exit ticket and ask students to name one change in their reasoning. Remind them to return with the same browser if continuing later. Reserve dungeons and East Ward jobs for an extension, not a requirement for this first lesson. Your reusable teaching cycle is frame, investigate, compare, transfer, and reflect.