Proposal: Adapting Gamestorming 2.0 for Zoom-based Graduate Level Cybersecurity Courses

What would Gamestorming 2.0 look like if you stripped away the “game” language and applied the underlying facilitation principles to a Zoom‑based graduate‑level Cybersecurity & Audit course?

Starting from three realities:

1. Students need entry points, not “fun.”
2. Zoom requires simpler, more intentional structures.
3. The TA should not have to juggle 3 rounds of breakout rooms.

... I identified several frameworks that would work in this type of educational setting:

Silent "Brainwriting"

Best for: shy students, unprepared students, threat modeling, audit findings Why it works: no one has to speak first

How to run it:

1. Pose a question: “What’s the biggest control gap in this scenario?”
2. Students type answers in chat or a shared doc or whiteboard for 2 minutes
3. Then call on 2–3 people to expand

Output: A visible pool of ideas as an artifact that the class can use for inspiration & discussion.

Roles & Hats

Best for: case studies, incident response, audit walkthroughs Why it works: students speak as the role, not as themselves

How to run it:

1. Share definition of the roles via RACI or some other format for alignment.
2. Put students into breakout rooms once
3. Assign each room a role: Red Team, Blue Team, Auditor, Compliance Officer, CISO
4. Give them a prompt: “From your role’s perspective, what’s the biggest risk?”

TA only creates one set of rooms. No reshuffling. No “game” performance pressure. Students don't have to invent a persona, the breakout room shares a role.

Heuristic Walkthrough

Best for: structured thinking, repeatable patterns Why it works: the structure is the preparation

Checklist:

1. Asset
2. Threat
3. Vulnerability
4. Control
5. What’s missing

Students fill in the blanks. No one has to invent brilliance on the spot.
This works with different types of lists which can be provided by the professor, TA or generated via Silent Brainwriting.

Chat‑First Rounds

Best for: warm‑ups, quick engagement, low‑pressure participation Why it works: chat is safer than speaking, and it reveals who is participating

How to run it:

1. Ask a question
2. Everyone answers in chat
3. Pick 2–3 to expand

This is the single most reliable way to get shy students talking on Zoom, and gives the TA a visibility tool: they can track of who hasn't spoken and recommend names to the professor in a way that feels supportive/inclusive, not punitive.

One Big Board

Best for: mapping, clustering, visual thinking Why it works: everyone contributes silently, then discusses

• Use Miro, Mural, or Zoom Whiteboard.
• Give students categories or swimlanes.
• Let them add sticky notes for 3 minutes.
• Then discuss patterns.

This could be combined with Roles & Hats or Heuristics in breakout groups for deeper analysis.

Thoughts?  Have you tried these in online educational settings?  How did it help the student engagement experience?