ETEC 522 – Sept. 2011

Julie S 6:27 pm on October 2, 2011

-1 votes

Log in to leave a Comment
Tags: gamer ( 6 )   

• 

  Karen Jones 6:49 pm on October 4, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

  Since I teach biology, I thought I would review “Create a Stem Cell Line”. I used a framework for evaluating critical design of immersive game environments described by de Castell & Jenson (2003), along with The Cube, in order to analyse the market for this game. Unfortunately, this game is the antithesis of an immersive environment, so perhaps it was bad judgement on my part to choose such a rigorous framework. In fact, there is nothing game-like about it; it is closer to a simulation, but even that is a stretch by my standards. While it is recommended for grades 10+, I would say you’d have to be more mature to tolerate such tedium. For what they’re worth, here are my observations:

  http://www.edheads.org/activities/stem1/index.shtml

  The critical design features of immersive game environments :

  Interactivity (rather than display and exposition):
  • Basically a simulation with very few choices for varying the “player’s” pathway through the simulation
  • Not really a game; there is no skill or possibility of winning or losing
  Navigation of a complex world (rather than stand-alone tasks):
  • This simulation is basically a series of videos linked together with relatively meaningless tasks (wiping down the counter with alcohol)
  • 3 D graphics
  • only 3 different types of cells to select limits the pathway
  Narrative structure (rather than propositional):
  • There is a “story” with major characters, however they don’t interact with the player
  • Basically talked at (with text in closed captions)
  Activities structure (rather than disciplinary):
  • Requires the player to print out a key to identify the type of stem cell made
  • Record the colours of media in order to tell if the preparation is pure
  Role enactment as a means to identities (rather than self-representation):
  • Player does not get to chose a role other than assistant (not really specified)
  Locus of control for the player (rather than the teacher):
  • There are no player controlled actions; just click and the animation does what it is “supposed” to
  • Will not let the player move on until the predetermined tasks are done i.e. clicked
  Enhanced quality of agency (rather than constrained); freedom & autonomy:
  • Totally constrained
  • Same pathway through simulation is possible on repeat (warning: have needles ready to poke eyes out in lieu of sitting through the diatribe twice)
  Networking with others (rather than stand-alone individual student model)”:
  • Stand-alone, no networking capabilities

  EVA considerations:
  The market:
  • For grades 10 – 12 +
  • Educational
  • Biology courseware/scientific method
  The service
  • Straight delivery of content: ” helping” researchers with the development of a stem cell line to market commercially
  The buyers
  • Educational institutions; no person in their right mind would “play” this unless it was part of an assignment

  In summary, I guess it’s pretty obvious that I would neither recommend investing in this company on the basis of this one product, nor puchasing access to their Web 1.0 style program.

  KJ

  Reference:

  de Castell, Suzanne, & Jenson, Jennifer. (2003). Serious play. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(6), 649-665.

  • 

    jarvise 2:38 pm on October 5, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

    Hi Karen,

    This is a valuable review – its helpful to see what we are NOT aiming for in this type of product. I agree with you on this one. Its like watching a low-budget educational movie in class. I’m pretty sure there’s a Simpsons reference here too, but I’ll skip it this time…
    Great (and thorough) analysis!

    Emily