General information
This Role Play Game is set up as an adventure game to help Arctic Explorers save the planet from Global Warming. You are first introduced to the team, which you will join. It seems to be an actual team of explorers who traveled to the North Pole on an expedition that ended June of this year (real time). The game takes place within boundaries or real life practices but the characters have been animated with avatars.
The first thing a player does is choose their own avatar (computerized character of self) and there are many different choices for looks. You can choose hair, face expressions, even accessories and clothing. After you are signed in to the team and have your avatar, you are given an assignment, based on a personality test that you complete. This short test is based on multiple intelligences, and the assignment given is according to where you tested. For instance, I tested strongest in the naturalist personality trait, so my assignments all had to do with nature. This assignment is downloaded to your computer in pdf format and can be read and followed outside of the computer part of the game. Things such as collecting nature items and relating them to pollution, examining animals for reactions to pollution, were parts of my assignment. After the assignment is given the player has an opportunity to search for answers (for the assignment) by using several tools available. There are even links to the BBC website for official news items and other articles for extra reading. Findings can be recorded and saved online in a special logbook, which can be shared with other players (or classmates). In addition to these “real” aspects, for special rewards after researching there are action games (video games to play) within the main game. Another feature of the game is to earn points (eeks), which you can use to accessorize your avatar, download wallpaper themes for your computer or update your control panel. There are many levels to the game, like levels within levels, and real video clips mixed with animation, to make the game multi-dimensional.
Analysis based on Flow Theory
Based on the Flow Theory, there are items within the game for every level of learner and every type of personality. Whether one would find and use them all is the key question.
o Task that the learners can complete – there are definite tasks to be completed. Within each checkpoint (E-C-O-L-O-L-G-Y), there is an assignment to be completed. You can take your assignment and take as long a time (or short) as you want. If you leave the game, your location and assignment will be remembered, and you can pick up where you left off when you return. You are free to complete as much or as little of each task that you desire. Within each assignment, there are multiple tasks to complete.
o Ability to concentrate on task – tasks are exciting and easily focused on. The levels of the game takes into account many learner types, by adding the quick paced video games within the assignment, the monotony some players might find is broken up. Extra points are given for these games as well.
o Task has clear goals – The main goal, to save the planet from global warming, is very clear, but not always how our character helps us accomplish this. However, the smaller assignment tasks are very clear, and can be printed out and completed with classmates or individually. The goals, whether you are playing to earn points, find ways to help global warming, get rewards and play games, are clear and varied. There is something here for every type of learner.
o Task provides immediate feedback – yes. Feedback is presented in the way of conversation with the other team members (avatars). Through text boxes, they keep you informed of how you’re doing and let you know when you’ve worked hard and need a break with a “game”. You also earn eeks along the way, another form of feedback.
o Deep but effortless involvement – yes. The involvement is immediate as you try to find your way around the control panel and figure out how to earn points. In the meantime you are actually learning a lot about the people affected by global warming and what we can do as individuals to help. This is the type of game that involves learning without knowing you are learning, while involved in the pretend aspect of joining the polar expedition.
o Exercising a sense of control over their actions – all players do have control over their actions. You are in control from the beginning, when you assemble your avatar. And because the assignments are given based on your personality profile (you can ask for a different one if you don’t like the one they give you), the feeling of control and personal attention is very high from the outset. As the game progresses you also make all your own decisions, decide what to look at, what to complete, etc.
o Concern for self disappears during flow - From the beginning, when you put together your avatar you feel a connection with the game and the people in it. They speak to your avatar and you respond with the mouse, which opens a dialog box next to your avatar. It is easy to become totally immersed in the game and lose concern for yourself as you play. You become your character.
o Sense of duration of time is altered – the time element is irrelevant in this game, because you can take your assignments away with you. In that respect time is altered. For instance, if a teacher decided to use this game in the classroom, the entire class could get assignments, come back to class, participate in completing the downloaded tasks, and then go back online to post to the log book. These could be compiled in a class book, which could be shared with the class. The online time would be much shorter than the actual time it takes to complete the assignments. Also because the play is interrupted by these secondary games of fun, time is skewed.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Friday, August 1, 2008
Scrabble
Board Game Scrabble – usually played with up to four people around a table (but may be played with more in teams). Each player or team receives 7 tiles with a single letter on each tile. To begin one person (or team) uses their letters to form a word and places it on the board. Play continues as each player or team makes words from their tiles and places them in a crossword fashion on the board. Letter tiles are worth points and score is kept to see who can make words worth the most points.
Electronic Scrabble – played the same as above but play can be against other online players (that you cannot see) or against the computer. You can choose the level of your computer competitor to match with your skill or be higher (for more challenge) or lower (to win). Your letters appear in a window as you play and the computer times your turn. Your score is kept electronically. For play you drag your letters to the board.
Comparison of two formats: digital vs. non-digital
Game components
The format is very similar in physical appearance, although there is no “feeling” of the tiles and you don’t choose your own tiles. There is no board, just computer space where you drag your tiles. I don’t believe the electronic format in this way interferes with play. It is easy to see your letters and your opponent’s letters are also visible, which is different from the board game, where you don’t see others’ tiles.
My definition of games is “a motivating activity with a purpose, following a set of rules, while having fun.” This game definitely falls into my definition for certain learning types. There is a purpose to the game, to form words and use the letters that contain the highest number of points to win. There are definite rules to follow: play follows in turn, only “dictionary” words are allowed, words must be placed in a particular position to read as a crossword, etc. The motivation and fun portions of Scrabble would be determined by individual learner types so this would vary. Using Prensky’s scale, learners falling on the left side of the scale would be less inclined to find this game fun, whereas motivation might come from other factors (such as a need to learn vocabulary).
Interaction
Communication between players is definitely affected, but depending on a particular learner it may be positive or negative. If, as was indicated in our reading, ESL students find it inhibiting to speak (or in this case make words) in front of others due to the fear of mistakes, the electronic version might appeal more to them. However, if students learn best in social situations and are able to help one another, then the communication factor of the board game would be better suited to the situation.
Cooperation - In most games of adult scrabble communication, and therefore cooperation is kept to a minimum even in the board game. The purpose of the game is to get a higher score than your opponent, which leads to competition being a main motivator in many players. However, in my classroom, I allow conversation, even help and discussion among the students to facilitate the learning aspect more than the “winning” aspect. Because my students are learning English, I believe the more they communicate and speak in English, the better for their learning. For this game, this is the main purpose of the game, with building vocabulary the secondary issue. Since many researchers now agree that language is a social experience (and I, too, believe this to be true), the social experience of the game is very important.
Engagement to the game could come from either the board game or the electronic version. I enjoyed playing the electronic version, and found it very challenging and thus motivating. It engaged me with it’s visual aspects and I think it would be even more so if I had been playing with online competitors instead of the computer. Students would be engaged with this game, especially since their goal is to improve their English. This aspect would engage them. Still, I think the interaction with others would engage them further.
Motivation to play the game would depend on the type of learner and purpose for playing the game. Those learners who like to reflect and think would use those skills to play, while hands-on learners would enjoy the control they would have over the words and dragging. The game might be too slow for Prensky’s left-side people, with the lack of action leading to them needing a different kind of motivation. Perhaps the motivation would come from learning new words (as in my ESL students), beating their opponent, or just beating their own last score.
-
Electronic Scrabble – played the same as above but play can be against other online players (that you cannot see) or against the computer. You can choose the level of your computer competitor to match with your skill or be higher (for more challenge) or lower (to win). Your letters appear in a window as you play and the computer times your turn. Your score is kept electronically. For play you drag your letters to the board.
Comparison of two formats: digital vs. non-digital
Game components
The format is very similar in physical appearance, although there is no “feeling” of the tiles and you don’t choose your own tiles. There is no board, just computer space where you drag your tiles. I don’t believe the electronic format in this way interferes with play. It is easy to see your letters and your opponent’s letters are also visible, which is different from the board game, where you don’t see others’ tiles.
My definition of games is “a motivating activity with a purpose, following a set of rules, while having fun.” This game definitely falls into my definition for certain learning types. There is a purpose to the game, to form words and use the letters that contain the highest number of points to win. There are definite rules to follow: play follows in turn, only “dictionary” words are allowed, words must be placed in a particular position to read as a crossword, etc. The motivation and fun portions of Scrabble would be determined by individual learner types so this would vary. Using Prensky’s scale, learners falling on the left side of the scale would be less inclined to find this game fun, whereas motivation might come from other factors (such as a need to learn vocabulary).
Interaction
Communication between players is definitely affected, but depending on a particular learner it may be positive or negative. If, as was indicated in our reading, ESL students find it inhibiting to speak (or in this case make words) in front of others due to the fear of mistakes, the electronic version might appeal more to them. However, if students learn best in social situations and are able to help one another, then the communication factor of the board game would be better suited to the situation.
Cooperation - In most games of adult scrabble communication, and therefore cooperation is kept to a minimum even in the board game. The purpose of the game is to get a higher score than your opponent, which leads to competition being a main motivator in many players. However, in my classroom, I allow conversation, even help and discussion among the students to facilitate the learning aspect more than the “winning” aspect. Because my students are learning English, I believe the more they communicate and speak in English, the better for their learning. For this game, this is the main purpose of the game, with building vocabulary the secondary issue. Since many researchers now agree that language is a social experience (and I, too, believe this to be true), the social experience of the game is very important.
Engagement to the game could come from either the board game or the electronic version. I enjoyed playing the electronic version, and found it very challenging and thus motivating. It engaged me with it’s visual aspects and I think it would be even more so if I had been playing with online competitors instead of the computer. Students would be engaged with this game, especially since their goal is to improve their English. This aspect would engage them. Still, I think the interaction with others would engage them further.
Motivation to play the game would depend on the type of learner and purpose for playing the game. Those learners who like to reflect and think would use those skills to play, while hands-on learners would enjoy the control they would have over the words and dragging. The game might be too slow for Prensky’s left-side people, with the lack of action leading to them needing a different kind of motivation. Perhaps the motivation would come from learning new words (as in my ESL students), beating their opponent, or just beating their own last score.
-
Monday, July 28, 2008
Luxor and Garbage Glut
Learners’ styles
My student’s styles are a mixture of learning styles, and since I teach adults and college aged students, they would be different than the younger students of today. For the basis of this analysis I will concentrate on the students at the university level, who would be closer to the Accommodators, based on Kolb’s learning theory. Accommodating (doing and feeling) learners react by intuition, not logic. They like to jump in, don’t read instructions, and react with their “gut” rather than thinking things through. The students in this group like fast-paced instruction, get bored easily by too much “talk” and like to keep things moving in the classroom.
Based on Prensky’s list, I’d put these same learners near the left side of the scale. They are used to video games, and interestingly, although they come from many different countries, their experiences in this regard are quite similar. They seem to have this commonality, which makes games teaching especially attractive in my classroom. My own learning style vacillates between the groups, if that’s possible, going from a reflecting mode on the one hand to a reactive mode at other times. Being an older learner myself, I can relate to the slower side of things, but am intrigued and interested in all things electronic.
Analysis of games
Luxor 2 was developed by Big Fish Games, a game developing company that, according to their website, is a global leader in the industry. Very little information on the actual company is available on their website, but the game Luxor 2 is pretty self-explanatory once you open it. Although listed as a puzzle game, the website describes this game as “adventure arcade” and I think this is a more fitting description. There was no real puzzle to figure out. The description given on the website of Luxor 2 was a “Journey through Egypt as you work to thwart Set's diabolical plans.” This, too, is an unrealistic vision of what to expect as you use your mouse to move a gold scarab around the screen as it shoots red, yellow and green balls into a chain of other red, yellow and green balls. By shooting the ball between other balls of the same color you create a chain of 3 balls, which explodes into points. As the balls explode, artefacts fall from the top of the screen and you “catch” them with the scarab, earning points. It is a fast-paced game with several levels.
Garbage Glut was developed, written and designed by Gotham Gazette. It is an interactive game about the disposal of garbage in New York City. This game allows the player to make decisions about how they would dispose of various types of garbage and then gives a score in the end on how these choices impact the environment. There is only one level of play but players’ scores are kept and they can replay making different decisions, with different outcomes by the new choices.
Analysis of Learning Style
Luxor 2 would be the favorite game for Accommodating learners based on the two I’ve chosen to analyze. Luxor 2 is a fast-paced game based on using reactive instinct and no logic. The colors, sounds and action of the game would keep the attention of Accommodators, and I admit, I found it very addicting to play. Although the simplistic nature and overall focus of the game doesn’t lend itself to my teaching, I found it exciting and fun. Actually, I don’t know what skills you would be teaching to use this game, other than colors or motor coordination skills, which don’t come into play for my students. There was no reading, except for a small amount of instruction at the beginning. And since accommodators don’t like to read the instructions anyway, there would be no value for an ESL student.
A better choice for learning ESL would be the Garbage Glut game. Extensive reading was necessary for this game, as well as comprehension of environmental concepts such as recycling and shipping garbage. So, although this would be the better choice academically, the accommodating learner style would not be attracted to this type of game. Perhaps it could be used to strengthen those skills that accommodators lack, such as reflection, thinking about things before reacting, etc. In this way, the students might get a lot out of this type of game, but it might be a struggle to have them sit still and concentrate.
My student’s styles are a mixture of learning styles, and since I teach adults and college aged students, they would be different than the younger students of today. For the basis of this analysis I will concentrate on the students at the university level, who would be closer to the Accommodators, based on Kolb’s learning theory. Accommodating (doing and feeling) learners react by intuition, not logic. They like to jump in, don’t read instructions, and react with their “gut” rather than thinking things through. The students in this group like fast-paced instruction, get bored easily by too much “talk” and like to keep things moving in the classroom.
Based on Prensky’s list, I’d put these same learners near the left side of the scale. They are used to video games, and interestingly, although they come from many different countries, their experiences in this regard are quite similar. They seem to have this commonality, which makes games teaching especially attractive in my classroom. My own learning style vacillates between the groups, if that’s possible, going from a reflecting mode on the one hand to a reactive mode at other times. Being an older learner myself, I can relate to the slower side of things, but am intrigued and interested in all things electronic.
Analysis of games
Luxor 2 was developed by Big Fish Games, a game developing company that, according to their website, is a global leader in the industry. Very little information on the actual company is available on their website, but the game Luxor 2 is pretty self-explanatory once you open it. Although listed as a puzzle game, the website describes this game as “adventure arcade” and I think this is a more fitting description. There was no real puzzle to figure out. The description given on the website of Luxor 2 was a “Journey through Egypt as you work to thwart Set's diabolical plans.” This, too, is an unrealistic vision of what to expect as you use your mouse to move a gold scarab around the screen as it shoots red, yellow and green balls into a chain of other red, yellow and green balls. By shooting the ball between other balls of the same color you create a chain of 3 balls, which explodes into points. As the balls explode, artefacts fall from the top of the screen and you “catch” them with the scarab, earning points. It is a fast-paced game with several levels.
Garbage Glut was developed, written and designed by Gotham Gazette. It is an interactive game about the disposal of garbage in New York City. This game allows the player to make decisions about how they would dispose of various types of garbage and then gives a score in the end on how these choices impact the environment. There is only one level of play but players’ scores are kept and they can replay making different decisions, with different outcomes by the new choices.
Analysis of Learning Style
Luxor 2 would be the favorite game for Accommodating learners based on the two I’ve chosen to analyze. Luxor 2 is a fast-paced game based on using reactive instinct and no logic. The colors, sounds and action of the game would keep the attention of Accommodators, and I admit, I found it very addicting to play. Although the simplistic nature and overall focus of the game doesn’t lend itself to my teaching, I found it exciting and fun. Actually, I don’t know what skills you would be teaching to use this game, other than colors or motor coordination skills, which don’t come into play for my students. There was no reading, except for a small amount of instruction at the beginning. And since accommodators don’t like to read the instructions anyway, there would be no value for an ESL student.
A better choice for learning ESL would be the Garbage Glut game. Extensive reading was necessary for this game, as well as comprehension of environmental concepts such as recycling and shipping garbage. So, although this would be the better choice academically, the accommodating learner style would not be attracted to this type of game. Perhaps it could be used to strengthen those skills that accommodators lack, such as reflection, thinking about things before reacting, etc. In this way, the students might get a lot out of this type of game, but it might be a struggle to have them sit still and concentrate.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Simulation Games Analysis
Peacemaker : A brief analysis
Background
Peacemaker was developed by Impact Games in Pennsylvania in 2006. Impact Games is a developer who makes simulation games with current events in mind. According to their website, their aim is to “partner with and enable organizations to change the way people consume information and understand the world around them,” through simulation video games.
Peacemaker seems to follow this line of reasoning. Through choices made, the player not only makes decisions that could impact the peace between Israel and Palestine, but actually chooses to be a leader of one of the countries involved and can choose to take opposing sides in alternate games of play. This allows the player to exhibit higher order cognitive thinking while trying to make decisions favorable to the chosen side, while at the same time remaining positive in the world view.
The general play consists of first choosing to act in the role of the leader of Israel or Palestine. Second, while watching video of actual events that have appeared in the media, the player must make decisions on what action to take. The real events projected onto the screen make the play very lifelike, with the player put very much into the role. Decisions are not easy and each has consequences.
Game Play
My definition of games is “a motivating activity with a purpose, following a set of rules, while having fun.” To fulfill my definition, Peacemaker would have to have a motivating force, something to make players want to continue the game. I see this as possible on different levels. Some learners would want to take control and be motivated to make decisions to find a possible outcome of their own choices. This alone would be motivation for some. Anther type of learner would find the stimulation of trying to force peaceful relations among two countries as a motivator. Still others would need a goal, such as higher playing levels or tougher decisions to keep their interest. Peacemaker meets some of these expectations. While I was playing the game, I became unmotivated. I found the waiting between targets too long and I was uncertain when decision-making was necessary.
As far as a purpose, this was definitely covered. The purpose of the game was clearly stated – to make decisions that met your countries security needs, keeping your country safe, while also trying to make peace with the other country and at the same time maintaining a positive world image. Personally I found it difficult to know what decisions had what outcomes, but my lack of simulation game experience might account for this.
Following a set of rules was present, although, again, I found it difficult to know what all the rules were. In my short play, the demonstration ended after 8 rounds, I was not sure I had the knowledge of all the rules, nor could I find a way to locate them on the screen. Some of the rules seemed confusing, although it would be interesting to see how a learner more familiar with these games would find this.
And finally, fun. The idea of this game was fun. The intellectual pursuit of peace between Israel and Palestine is fun. However, the actual playing of the game left me wondering if I did something wrong and that if I had had more information it might have been more interesting.
I chose Convergers as my learner group because they like to solve problems and find solutions to practical issues (Kolb). The Peacemaker game lends itself to this type of learner, as the intellectual processes are called upon more often than the social aspects of thinking. Although it appears as if it were a social awareness game (and on one level is just that), the main cognitive tools necessary are more practical than sensitive. For this group, therefore, I would propose the following list of objectives:
Problem solving – to find solutions to the targeted problems of the game that propel the player to a positive outcome.
Decision-making – to make decisions based on game play rather than individual preferences, considering outcomes from multiple perspectives
Self-evaluation - to follow through on decisions made and notice the impact of consequences, going back to think again on how decisions made are affected by the various positions
Implementation and Assessment
Resources needed to play this game in a classroom would be computers and the purchase of the Peacemaker Game. The main obstacle would be the resources of the learning institution – would money be available to provide a classroom with computers for each learner, as well as purchase the game? Another obstacle would be monitoring the classroom to be sure learners were involved in the game selected and not surfing the Internet or playing other games.
In my situation of teaching ESL, this game is interesting because of the subject matter. Since my students come from around the world they have varying opinions on the Middle East and the situation portrayed in this game. Therefore, to implement the game, we would have to take cultural attitudes into consideration and explain to students before implementation the social awareness qualities of this game. Relevant subjects to this game might include world relations, cultural awareness and social studies. Because the learners are learning to read and speak in English, the video portion of the game is especially helpful. They would be using English to master the vocabulary and understand the different impacts of the game.
To assess this game I would suggest a panel discussion, highlighting the two sides. Students could be divided into groups and each could have an opportunity to discuss decisions made while playing the game and the impact they had on the world at large as well as their defending country. Care would have to be taken with this approach that the discussions didn’t become as heated as the war already waging. Keeping the discussion on an intellectual level would be the focus for the classroom.
Background
Peacemaker was developed by Impact Games in Pennsylvania in 2006. Impact Games is a developer who makes simulation games with current events in mind. According to their website, their aim is to “partner with and enable organizations to change the way people consume information and understand the world around them,” through simulation video games.
Peacemaker seems to follow this line of reasoning. Through choices made, the player not only makes decisions that could impact the peace between Israel and Palestine, but actually chooses to be a leader of one of the countries involved and can choose to take opposing sides in alternate games of play. This allows the player to exhibit higher order cognitive thinking while trying to make decisions favorable to the chosen side, while at the same time remaining positive in the world view.
The general play consists of first choosing to act in the role of the leader of Israel or Palestine. Second, while watching video of actual events that have appeared in the media, the player must make decisions on what action to take. The real events projected onto the screen make the play very lifelike, with the player put very much into the role. Decisions are not easy and each has consequences.
Game Play
My definition of games is “a motivating activity with a purpose, following a set of rules, while having fun.” To fulfill my definition, Peacemaker would have to have a motivating force, something to make players want to continue the game. I see this as possible on different levels. Some learners would want to take control and be motivated to make decisions to find a possible outcome of their own choices. This alone would be motivation for some. Anther type of learner would find the stimulation of trying to force peaceful relations among two countries as a motivator. Still others would need a goal, such as higher playing levels or tougher decisions to keep their interest. Peacemaker meets some of these expectations. While I was playing the game, I became unmotivated. I found the waiting between targets too long and I was uncertain when decision-making was necessary.
As far as a purpose, this was definitely covered. The purpose of the game was clearly stated – to make decisions that met your countries security needs, keeping your country safe, while also trying to make peace with the other country and at the same time maintaining a positive world image. Personally I found it difficult to know what decisions had what outcomes, but my lack of simulation game experience might account for this.
Following a set of rules was present, although, again, I found it difficult to know what all the rules were. In my short play, the demonstration ended after 8 rounds, I was not sure I had the knowledge of all the rules, nor could I find a way to locate them on the screen. Some of the rules seemed confusing, although it would be interesting to see how a learner more familiar with these games would find this.
And finally, fun. The idea of this game was fun. The intellectual pursuit of peace between Israel and Palestine is fun. However, the actual playing of the game left me wondering if I did something wrong and that if I had had more information it might have been more interesting.
I chose Convergers as my learner group because they like to solve problems and find solutions to practical issues (Kolb). The Peacemaker game lends itself to this type of learner, as the intellectual processes are called upon more often than the social aspects of thinking. Although it appears as if it were a social awareness game (and on one level is just that), the main cognitive tools necessary are more practical than sensitive. For this group, therefore, I would propose the following list of objectives:
Problem solving – to find solutions to the targeted problems of the game that propel the player to a positive outcome.
Decision-making – to make decisions based on game play rather than individual preferences, considering outcomes from multiple perspectives
Self-evaluation - to follow through on decisions made and notice the impact of consequences, going back to think again on how decisions made are affected by the various positions
Implementation and Assessment
Resources needed to play this game in a classroom would be computers and the purchase of the Peacemaker Game. The main obstacle would be the resources of the learning institution – would money be available to provide a classroom with computers for each learner, as well as purchase the game? Another obstacle would be monitoring the classroom to be sure learners were involved in the game selected and not surfing the Internet or playing other games.
In my situation of teaching ESL, this game is interesting because of the subject matter. Since my students come from around the world they have varying opinions on the Middle East and the situation portrayed in this game. Therefore, to implement the game, we would have to take cultural attitudes into consideration and explain to students before implementation the social awareness qualities of this game. Relevant subjects to this game might include world relations, cultural awareness and social studies. Because the learners are learning to read and speak in English, the video portion of the game is especially helpful. They would be using English to master the vocabulary and understand the different impacts of the game.
To assess this game I would suggest a panel discussion, highlighting the two sides. Students could be divided into groups and each could have an opportunity to discuss decisions made while playing the game and the impact they had on the world at large as well as their defending country. Care would have to be taken with this approach that the discussions didn’t become as heated as the war already waging. Keeping the discussion on an intellectual level would be the focus for the classroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)