Analysis of Puzzle, Quiz, and Sports Games

Learners’ Styles

Prior to answering the Kolb Learning Inventory I viewed myself a Diverging Learner, a learner that prefers to think and feel. However, after completing the Inventory and reflecting, I realized this is not entirely true. It appears that the type of learner I am is situational. When I learn, especially when faced with new learning, I will choose to: do things or watch and listen.  For example, with math concepts I prefer to watch and listen, however when gardening I prefer to “just do it”.  The same holds true when learning in situations where prior knowledge exists.  To increase my tennis skills I watch and listen as the instructor explains and demonstrates, however, I also learn by doing when I put into play what was explained and demonstrated.

Prensky’s checklist clearly shows my style of learning is dependent upon what I am most comfortable with and most familiar with.  Most of my responses to Prensky’s checklist fell in the 4/5 range. I believe this is in part due to my age and experiences. It is important to keep in mind that either style needs to be considered when using simulated games as learning tools, or in more traditional classroom instruction.  It seems both style preferences need to be incorporated into the games interface and classroom instruction in order to establish a level “playing” (learning) field for all students.

According to the VAK Learning Style Assessment some people have an even mixture of two or three learning styles. My scores showed a one point spread between visual and auditory and only a 4/5 point spread between both of these styles and the kinesthetic learning style. In thirteen questions, I was not comfortable choosing only one response. Could it be possible that learning styles are more fluid than absolute? When teaching, as I consider student learning, I need to keep this possibility in mind.

Analysis of Games: General Information

Cryptogram: In this word game, sentences comprised of one set of letters are substituted by the game player for another set of letters in order to figure out a familiar phrase. The challenge is to break the code  within the seven minute time limit.  If needed the game player has the option to access three hints which provide clues to help solve the phrase.  

Additionally, with three minutes remaining, the game will automatically eliminate “useless” letters every 30 seconds.

Mrs. N’s Math Slalom: This game combines quick  math computation skills and quick skiing skills (eye/hand co-ordination)  to earn gold, silver, or bronze medals. Players choose between the four math operations (+,-, x, /) to test their skills. Players must multi-task during game play. Math computation skills, and eye hand co-ordination skills must occur simultaneously, quickly and almost effortlessly to earn a medal. The game begins at the top of a ski hill where skiers (players) will see a number displayed.  As skiers slalom downhill, they will come upon two flags, each flag with a number on it.  If the number at the top of the hill is a factor of the two numbers on the flags, the skier must ski between the flags, if not the skier must ski around the flags. Make quick correct computations to decide whether to ski through or ski around the flags to earn a medal.  The more correct quick computations, and quick hands to ski through or around the flags will earn a gold medal, silver medal, and bronze medal respectively.

Comparison 1: Game Components

                                         Strong Components     

                                                                                                   

Cryptogram

Rules

Mrs. N’s Math Slalom

                                          Weak Components     

                                                                                                   

Cryptogram	Challenging Goals	Mrs. N’s Math Slalom
	Interaction
	Amusement

Despite both games having clearly defined rules, both games fail to deliver challenging goals, interaction, and amusement. Although players are working against the clock, which presents somewhat of a challenge, higher order thinking skills are not required in either game. Instead, players can expect to rely on  letter and word knowledge and math fact knowledge for game play. Because players do not have opportunities to “hold,” examine, or manipulate game objects there is no interaction in Cryptogram (is choosing a letter and having the ability to delete letter choice considered interaction).  In Mrs. N’s Math Slalom the most interaction a player will encounter is slaloming through or around the flags. Both games fall into the lower level thinking category with the absence of complex interactions. Crypotgram is not differentiated based on student ability level nor is Mrs. N’s Math Slalom. As a result, the one-dimensionality invites boredom. Combine all of the above and it is no surprise that both games fail to be engaging.

Comparison 2: Learners’ Style

Since both games have major weaknesses in three out of the four game components I did not feel either game would be a fit or misfit for any one particular learner.  I did however feel that all learners might choose to partake in either game for practice purposes only. Players would practice using word knowledge skills while playing Cryptogram and math computation skills while playing Mrs. N’s Math Slalom.