Category Archives: Games

Game On!: A Book Review

Posted on by
Collection of eight fiction and nonfiction books
My quarantine reading pile.

Bell, K. (2018). Game on! Gamification, gameful design, and the rise of the gamer educator. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

In the current era of rampant student debt and a growing awareness of how disproportionately it affects students from lower-income families and underrepresented minorities, student retention and degree completion is a critical piece of the effort to narrow the gap. Many students may struggle with the balance of competing priorities and pressures that are foreign to more affluent peers. Without a strong support network or lacking family and community examples of how to succeed in this new setting, current disincentives can overpower long-term benefits that may seem too remote for realistic achievement. If students enroll in a postsecondary institution, but leave without a degree and with a heavy debt load, they are unlikely to receive much benefit from their initial efforts to attend. 

Dr. Kevin Bell suggests that gamification is a promising approach towards better student engagement with class material and improved scholastic rigor. Games can be difficult, yet still enjoyable and worth persistent effort. Few players expect to finish a video game without a single misstep. He also posits that now is a time in which early players of arcade and home console games are reaching a stage in their academic careers to have the freedom to try novel approaches in their teaching methods and philosophies. His book, Game On!, explores five case studies of gameful teaching at the university level to discuss early steps in implementation of games in post-secondary education and how they might have a lasting effect on students and educational programs alike.

As the book begins, he cites James Paul Gee’s summation of three basic elements of game design that fit well into education. These elements are summed up as follows. Both new players and new learners first need to be enticed to try, despite a high likelihood of initial failure. This is followed by the need to put in significant effort with possibly minimal initial motivation. Finally, they need to experience some level of success as a result of those efforts. Dr. Bell proposes that gameful design may get students past the initial fear of failure, and hopefully help them achieve a sufficient level of mastery in a subject for the topic itself to generate interest. One of the concepts that returned throughout the book was the importance of creating situations where initial failure is expected and motivating, rather than discouraging or an obstacle to further advancement. This is the usual model in video games, but less common in the academic world, where a failed test can have dramatic negative effects on both grades and motivation. 

While Game On! focused on the postsecondary level of education, I found this assessment to be a compelling start to the book and a philosophy that resonated with my own experiences with discouraged learners of all ages. As an educator and a librarian, I have observed that overcoming a sense of defeat is frequently the first step towards improved learning and scholastic results. Until a learner convinces themself that they are capable of mastery in a subject, they have little chance of success. As I read the book, I was drawn to the myriad opportunities it provided to see new approaches for involving students in subject matter and academic practices. With these differing entry points, material can seem more accessible and less daunting. When learning is presented as an invitation to interact with ideas and material, rather than a monolithic challenge to be conquered only to then tackle yet another monolith, students can become engaged at their own pace and with more sense of both personal agency and investment. Each featured instructor’s method emphasized distinct aspects of a gameful approach to their subject matter and how their students interacted with it. 

Dr. Bell described five very different game styles, ranging from role-playing and Easter egg quests to choose-your-own adventure scenarios to thriller-style spy games, at universities around the United States and Canada. In all cases, instructor goals included enhancing learner  motivation to engage meaningfully with the subject matter, and fostering good practices around learning and using information. Most of the case studies described a single cycle of a class, or occasionally two iterations, meaning sample sizes were not convincing on a grand scale, but each instructor was able to cite indicators of higher achievement and/or engagement after their first production of the gamified version of their class, as compared to earlier models they had used to teach the same material, and all looked forward to revising and offering an enhanced version of their gamified classes.

Bell looks to the work of Karl Kapp in the early 2010s to describe effective gamification. This approach emphasizes elements that make games enjoyable and how they can be incorporated to make learning more effective. He also draws from Csikszentmihalyi’s work in the last quarter of the twentieth century to describe the sensation of “flow,” which may serve as a proxy for engagement with class materials. He concludes the book with a new model to measure gamification, based on a combination of Kapp’s and Csikszentmihalyi’s models. He calls it the SIMPLE rubric, an acronym for “student intrinsic motivation for persistence in learning environments.” It was developed by his team during his work at Northeastern University in response to a need for a better tool to assess vendor products, especially as they related to engagement and success for students from at-risk demographics.

In addition to reducing fears of failure, the book focused extensively on the importance of timely feedback, ideally from the instructor, but also from peers or built into the system. This concept of frequent, supportive, and constructive feedback arose in each chapter and is difficult to achieve in every setting, gameful or not. Whether assessing knowledge via a game or an examination, delayed or nonexistent feedback diminishes the usefulness and learning potential of an assessment. With early and frequent feedback, misconceptions can be uncovered and corrected promptly, before further effort and incorrect understanding is built. If feedback occurs too late after the learning activity, it has less relevance to the learner and does not help support their understanding about the subject matter. 

Other recurrent elements of gamefulness throughout the scenarios in the book included appropriate levels of challenge, a good mix of competition, cooperation and conflict, clear goals and ease for students to get involved. Learners want to be able to understand the goals as well as the mechanics of the game system so they won’t be discouraged by the rules before engaging in the subject matter. Learners also tend to engage well with opportunities both to work in meaningful teams and to demonstrate individual or group excellence in various settings and with different challenges. As I work frequently with struggling students, these elements also resonated with my experience. For students that already dread school and its procedures, educational games need to be instantly accessible and provide opportunities for positive social interactions and early success. Without those attributes, the experience is just another occasion to be humiliated and isolated by their scholastic challenges. 

One of Bell’s interests is how these initial class forays into gamification might scale up to an entire academic program or department, or even be incorporated throughout a college or university. With over a decade of experience in instructional technology leadership roles at universities including Southern New Hampshire, Northeastern, and most recently, Western Sydney University, (LinkedIn) he could have written the book as a how-to manual and incorporated the case studies solely as illustrations of principle. Instead, he gave each class its own starring role in a chapter and used them as demonstrations of the diversity of approaches that various practitioners can create. His summation at the end of the book is that there is no single best way to add game elements to a course. In Game On!, dedicated instructors will discover a multitude of options and can use the ones that best fit their personality and goals, or find the inspiration and freedom to incorporate gamefulness in entirely new ways.   

Dr. Bell has extensive background in online education, including spearheading the massive expansion of Southern New Hampshire’s online and nonprofit degree program, called College for America several years ago (EDUCAUSE). This focus serves as a recurring theme throughout the book, as an evident driving objective is to improve quality and motivational aspects of online learning. Although three of the classes cited were primarily in-person formats, Bell made comparisons to how the gameful elements might be integrated into an online system. He asserts that enhanced online learning and massive open online courses (MOOCs) will be integral components of long-term efforts to make advanced learning accessible to all members of society. Due to possibilities for more impact with reduced costs, if online options can maintain good quality and an enthralling experience, they show promise. Gameful design may help achieve some of these goals, particularly in engaging students with more competing challenges in their lives. If learning feels less like a slog, it requires less mental energy and may more easily fit into a long day.

One chapter described a MOOC, designed with the gameful elements partially as a test of concept. Because MOOCs frequently have low completion rates, the instructor hoped to better sustain interest and participation through the addition of game elements. This MOOC had a slightly higher completion rate than average, though not so increased as to have statistical significance. The larger number of participants in a MOOC created the additional burden of prompt feedback from an instructor being even more difficult than in a traditional class setting, and demonstrated the importance of developing better systems, support, and perhaps more complex automation to make the gameful aspects sustainable in this setting.  

Despite his focus on online learning, Dr. Bell makes clear his belief that higher levels of technology are not required to make a more gameful experience. All of the systems described in his book started with minimal tech support. Given that most were created by an individual instructor operating in relative isolation, the classes were produced without the benefit of multiple designers or extensive access to technology systems. They were either implemented within the learning management system already used by the university or in even more basic settings, primarily through paper-and-pencil methods. The biggest drawback to these rudimentary settings consistently seemed to be the difficulties in providing the aforementioned vital and frequent feedback. In nearly every case, each instructor intended to create a system in the next iteration to automatize or increase support for higher levels of interaction with students through the mechanics of the game.   

Game On! left me inspired and eager to experiment in my work with students and library users. At just under 200 pages, and low on complicated terminology, it is an accessible read for anyone interested in ways to incorporate elements of their favorite game into a learning setting. The book is particularly valuable for its demonstration that gamefulness can be introduced by adapting existing concepts and games, rather than a need to create a system entirely from the ground up. With only five case studies and relatively minimal statistical analysis, the book is more a showcase of possibilities than a manual of best practices. As noted earlier, sample sizes in the classes were too small to make strong cases based on numerical results of the benefits of gamified classes versus their more traditional counterparts. To a certain extent, the book is written with an assumption that readers will already be interested in pursuing gamification, rather than to convince them of its value. However, the author also includes qualitative information, primarily gathered from class evaluations, providing support for gamification in the form of positive feedback from students, even when combined with criticisms of factors that needed improvement. Each chapter concluded with an interview with the featured instructor, describing lessons learned and plans for further innovation of their classes. Dr. Bell combines these indicators to support the assertion that students will likely appreciate any efforts an instructor may make to include gamefulness in their course. It is not necessary to design the next blockbuster game to engage students more effectively and produce better class experiences. An initial offering can be improved incrementally, and starting with something is better than waiting for perfection. In any case, the game is likely to need tweaking and improvement as it plays out, so involving learners in the process of refinement will create an even stronger product and learners that feel more agency in their education.

In an era of social isolation and increased dependence on internet learning and communication, I found this book particularly valuable for its encouragement to innovate initially in small ways. I find myself curious whether I can create a compelling scavenger hunt to invite library users to more fully explore the library website and find valuable resources. It is a large and exhaustive site, so there are pages that get missed, much like Easter eggs in video games and movie special features. We are also currently moving the summer reading program to an entirely online experience, and the book inspires me to learn a little more about the capabilities of the software to see if there are ways we can make it more gameful and engaging.

Game On! is a compelling and uplifting read. I have recommended it to multiple colleagues and will be thinking about the lessons learned as I consider existing game structures and their suitability for learning activities. The world is full of elegant games and enthralling settings. Let’s harness them to enhance learning in a world that is awash with information!  

Additional References:

Game Review: Dixit

Posted on by
Six image cards include: a six-sided die with black tendrils emerging from the top, a white cradle in a forest of thorns, a giant woman gazing down on a small boat, a cat staring at a mouse in a birdcage under a crescent moon, an old-fashioned balance scale on a dark purple background, and an arm emerging from a stormy sea holding a torch under a cloudy sky
A sample hand in Dixit

First question: Which of these cards from your hand best fits the descriptor “darkness?”


Next question: Can you identify the card for which the active player chose that descriptor from a group of decoys?

Final question: If so, did you provide a sufficiently convincing match for the active player’s description to get other players’ votes and thus, bonus points?

This is Dixit, a game we played while visiting family. We tend to fill spare (or stolen) time with board games when we get together. I knew I would come home with a subject for my next play journal, and the trip did not disappoint. We particularly enjoyed the art and open-endedness of this game. 

The role of “active player” rotates around the group, as each player has the opportunity to choose a card out of their hand of six cards, describe it well enough to get some votes, but hopefully not so well that everyone guesses it, and lays their card, art side down, in the middle of the table. We used single-word descriptions, but the instructions leave room for interpretation on that point. When I looked online to verify rules, I noticed that one source refers to the active player as the “storyteller,” and suggests telling a one-sentence story about the image, which would add significant challenge.

Midgame score snapshot
Scoreboard with markers

After hearing the clue, other players choose a card of their own to match the description, and pile theirs with the active player’s card. Once everyone has contributed, the active player lays the images face up alongside the score board, aligning images to voting numbers. 

Players vote by submitting a number tile face down. Each player’s number tiles are a different color, to match their rabbit-shaped play marker. Number tokens are flipped to reveal votes. 

Voted tiles on three cards
Voted pictures
A quick-start reminder of scoring rules for Dixit
Rules reminder included on the scoreboard

Scoring depends primarily on the active player’s success in description. If either no players or all the players correctly choose the active player’s card, the active player gets 0 points and all others receive 2 points. If nobody guesses correctly, other players also receive 1 point for each incorrect vote for their image. If some, but not all, of the other players correctly choose the active player’s image, the active player gets three points and only the players that guess correctly receive an additional point for every incorrect guess for their image. Score is tracked by moving the rabbit tokens along the score board, which includes a handy scoring guide. Players draw a replacement card and play continues until someone reaches 30 points.

The game accommodates 3-6 players and gives a target age of 8+. We played with three adults, plus an 8-, a 10-, and a 13-year-old. The overall design of the game is elegant and robust. Most of us were novices to the game, and everybody mastered gameplay rapidly. We had so much fun that I don’t actually remember who won. This was the type of game for which the fun of playing far outweighed the actual outcome. It appeals to different interests for varying reasons. Art enthusiasts can enjoy the vivid, surreal pictures. Wordsmiths will revel in the challenge of picking exactly the right descriptive word or phrase. Players that like the challenge of misleading opponents will relish the opportunity to supplant the active player’s card with their alternative offering. 

Game progress overview - scoreboard plus voted images
Completed round snapshot

As we played Dixit, I thought about the ways in which it would be accessible to a broad audience, and audiences for whom it is not accessible. (Salen, 2008) With a completely pictorial basis, the game requires no reading, and could even be played across languages. Players only need a way to communicate descriptions to each other, including even a common language at a rudimentary level. Players without a shared language could use a phone app or bilingual dictionary to translate words or phrases. An obvious limitation would be that the game is not presently accessible to people with visual impairments. All the cards and tiles feel identical. On the other hand, Dixit is an interesting candidate for the Build a Better Book (BBB) project, a UC-Boulder project that creates multi-modal media items like picture books and games. 

A set of paperboard tiles with the numbers 1-6 printed on them.
Voting tiles

Last summer, my library hosted a series of teen programs to create 26 tactile-accessible alphabet tiles after attending a BBB workshop. The ingenuity that young people can demonstrate in creating finger-friendly pictures was quite inspiring. The cards could be re-created with Swell Touch Paper in a setting that owns appropriate equipment, then enhanced with further texturing or Braille descriptions. Tiles could also be recreated or enhanced with Braille numbers. For a version we could create in my library makerspace, we could use our CNC router on uniformly shaped wooden tiles to create outlines, then use an assortment of textured materials to enhance the pictures and create a story on each tile. We could base the pictures on the original game, or create an entirely novel set of “cards” to play with, and the goal of the BBB project is to make the items equally accessible to sighted and visually-impaired users. Creating pictures that are appealing and interpretable both visually and through touch results in fascinating products.

The process of creating this new interpretation of the game could be a natural demonstration of the topics explored by Horst, Herr-Stephenson, and Robinson (2010) and Gee (2005) in their explorations of how young people engage with learning and hobbies. Participants may become involved in the project from an interest in one or more of the technologies involved in the creation process, a desire to help their community or friends and loved ones that may benefit from the end products, a need for community service hours to fulfill a set of external requirements, or simply because the project interests them. Various members of the group may have facility or knowledge of some parts of the process, and the group can learn from each others’ areas of expertise or ingenuity. Participants that know 3D modeling or the CNC router may have ideas to streamline creation processes with those machines. Group members that have a loved one with visual impairments may have insight on characteristics that make tactile representations more effective. All members may create novel uses for provided materials or equipment, especially through continued exploration and interactions.

In addition to the technical learning that takes place through re-interpretation of Dixit as described above, the original game provides several natural opportunities for formal or informal learning. In a foreign language class, even introductory classes could use the game to practice vocabulary as students describe their cards and attempt to understand the descriptions of others. Descriptions could be given verbally, written, or in both formats, depending on the skills being practiced. If writing, a mini-whiteboard and marker might be valuable to pass to the active player so they can write the word large enough for everyone to easily see. In an English class, or another class learning parts of speech, the game could be used to practice by restricting possible descriptions to a single part of speech, either rotating among them, or limited to the current area of study. I could see nouns, adjectives, and verbs all being good descriptors, though prepositions or adverbs might be more difficult. In a creative writing class, students could write entire short stories about either a single card or a selection of cards. I have minimal knowledge of art concepts from a teaching standpoint, but it seems likely this game could be enjoyable and valuable in an art classroom. For social-emotional skills, this is a way to explore how the people around you think, as you see what facets of a card you and they notice or choose to describe. Most of the images are sufficiently complicated to leave plenty of room for interpretation. Dixit is a fun way to connect with people, and has plenty of opportunity for further discussion about the pictures, how players see them, and how best to capture them in minimalist form. I suspect the game will be a perennial favorite on future visits.  

Dixit box side and starting score markers
Starting out
Backs of the cards

References

Gee, J. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From The Age of Mythology to today’s schools. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond Communities of Practice: Language Power and Social Context (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, pp. 214-232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610554.012

Horst, H. A., Herr-Stephenson, B., and Robinson, L. (2010). Media Ecologies. In M. Ito, Hanging out, messing around, geeking out (pp. 29-78). The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from: mitp-content-server.mit.edu:18180/books/content/sectbyfn  

Salen, K. (2008). Toward an ecology of gaming. In K. Salen (Ed.)The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 1-20). The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from: lorishyba.pbworks.com/f/salen_ecology.pdf

Game Review: Seeker’s Notes

Posted on by

I deeply love playing board games with family and friends, but it is not my most common setting for game play, largely due to difficulties involved in getting multiple schedules aligned for such interactions. For frequency, my most common outlet is a hidden objects game app on my mobile phone. The game is called Seeker’s Notes and can easily monopolize a couple of hours if I am not careful. 

Digitally stylized picture of the back of a person's head looking at a mobile phone in their hand.

The game is built around a story with the player as the protagonist, attempting to help townspeople in a village that has been isolated by a curse and a deadly mist. Personally, I find the plot to be contrived and beside the point and I enjoy the game for its intricate art as well as the almost-meditative feel to finding hidden objects in beautiful scenes.

As the game begins, players have a relatively small group of locales to explore, including the train station, café, and mayor’s office. As a player continues, they unlock new locations and receive new missions for those settings. Initial goals in a new location are in the neighborhood of 10 hidden items, and as a player gains skill with repeated searches, goals increase in terms of how many items are sought to complete the location. By later levels, players find 20-30 items per search, within a three-minute time frame. Scenes are densely packed with lots of detail and an assortment of items to seek. Each item tends to have about five or so common places it is found, but somehow the searches can still remain challenging due to the sheer number of possible combinations of items and places. 

In addition to the hidden object challenges, there are also a few other types of puzzles including card-matching (memory style,) jumbled picture reassembly, and tile-switching. As a location or puzzle attempt is finished, players earn various components that can then be combined to create talismans to ease game play, trade items to swap for energy, collections that complete missions, and other reward items. Game progress occurs in multiple directions. A player’s overall level in the game increases as they gain experience points with successful explorations and mission accomplishments. Within each location, levels also increase with successful completions. As levels increase, players find more objects or otherwise demonstrate advancing skills to continue to make progress in the game. There are daily goals as well, including things like searching a particular location or search mode a set number of times, or finding a given number of specific game items. The game also typically has about a one-month cycle of “special events,” where the newest location is energetically cheap to explore, and there are new challenges every week or so, valid for just the given time span. 

A player chooses the location they want to explore from the stylized map, and each location cycles through a variety of styles of search, including finding items based on a text description, jumbled words, or a silhouette image of the item, looking in only a small section at a time, while the rest of the scene is obscured by “night,” finding matching pairs, or finding objects that are “morphing” between shapes. You can earn or purchase tools to make searches more successful by pointing out a missing item or adding time to your clock. 
On occasion, locations are occupied by an “anomaly,” such as increased speed of time passage, dark clouds floating across the scene, or only getting one item to search for at a time, rather than the usual four. Anomalies burn significantly more energy to explore a location, but result in more experience points when successfully completed. When a player runs out of energy, they cannot explore again until their energy replenishes sufficiently for a given location, either through waiting while it gains a point every three minutes, or using food items found or gained as rewards in various challenges. 

Of course, there are also plenty of options to use real-world money to purchase talismans, food, energy, and other attributes in the game. Ads pop up routinely between searches, and they would undeniably speed success, but I am able to play the game effectively without any purchases. If that were not the case, I would have likely given up the game long ago. 

While I typically play the game solo, I have occasionally shared a session with my husband or children. The biggest drawback to doing so is the small screen on a phone. It is hard to look at it jointly for any extended period without knocking heads together. Several years ago, my husband had downloaded several hidden object games onto an older computer, and we enjoyed playing them together and searching for items as a team, so I have participated in the genre as a joint project. My husband grew up playing video games and has quite a bit of expertise with controllers and complicated game mechanics, so in most games we play together, he takes the role of coach, as was demonstrated to be a common gender pattern by Siyahhan and Gee (2016). In hidden object games, we are on much more even footing, as the basic mechanic is merely to click on or touch the hidden items and a good eye or recognizing vocabulary can be equally beneficial. In most video games, we play with him in the role of expert and me as an apprentice, but in hidden object games, it is much more collaborative as we exchange knowledge and trade roles of recognizing an unusual item or term. (Stevens, 2008) 

At that time, we noticed that most of the games had lovely artwork and occasionally surprising terminology for search items, a trend that continues with Seeker’s Notes. This can make for some interesting vocabulary lessons such as in the setting “Candy World,” where one of the search items is “champignons.” I knew just enough French to recognize that I was looking for mushrooms, but did not realize until I looked it up that apparently the word can also be used in English to specifically describe button mushrooms. A “horse” can be a life-like figurine or statuette, or sometimes, a rocking horse or hobbyhorse (stick with a mock horse head on it.) A model ship in a bottle is sometimes called a “ship” and sometimes a “bottle.” This ambiguity gives some practice with more flexible thinking as a player learns to be open to multiple interpretations of a given term while searching. A quick look at company info shows the creator company, MYTONA, is based in Russia, which lines up with what I remember finding when we used to download them and were curious about interesting verbiage in their productions. I do not know if it is a common Russian industry, or if we just happen to be drawn to a particular style dominated by Russian artists. 

As I initially started thinking about this game, I had no ideas for educational purposes for it, as I don’t consider it a particularly instructive game on the surface. However, as I thought further about it, I realized it could actually be a good demonstration in a psychology or marketing class exploring motivation and “stickiness” of games or activities. (Liu, 2016) A new goal every day and repetitive, easily mastered basic aspects of the game encourage a player to connect with it on a daily basis. The month-long goals are extremely challenging (but probably not quite impossible) to achieve without using some of the paid features, which could also be considered cheats as in the Stevens (2008) article.

As I thought further, I also realized that while I wouldn’t use this precise game for it, the overall style of hidden pictures or seek-and-find could be (and probably has been) used for various training or educational purposes that involve recognizing a particular pattern. I could see creating a pre-lab exercise early in the school year asking students to identify and describe a solution for unsafe situations in a picture of a sample laboratory. In an occupational safety training, a similar model could be beneficial for training workers to recognize potential hazards on a worksite. For a history or language arts class, perhaps a picture including anachronisms or items that do not belong in a given story or setting and asking students to find and explain why they do not fit. 

Having recently worked with some chemistry students on molecular geometry and remembering how I struggled with it in organic chemistry, I feel like an electronic game version could provide a great opportunity for students to be exposed to many molecules and practice recognizing properly shaped vs. unlikely configurations in a more gameful, less pressure-filled setting than the usual difficulties of first mastering the prescribed 3-dimensional drawing method,then attempting to decide how things will orient themselves, which can be long, tedious, and difficult for novices to master. In learning to first recognize them in models, ideally rotatable, in an online format, there would be a lower barrier to entry, increasing the likelihood of being willing to try. Secondly, when looking through many takes a matter of minutes rather than a single model taking minutes just to draw, students may be more willing to spend more time engaged with the task. In addition, as they practice, they are likely to find themselves recognizing patterns they may not even initially be able to describe but will give them enhanced success and a feeling of progression. (Bell, 2018) As they become more comfortable with available configurations and how molecules arrange themselves, translating that knowledge back into a particular method of drawing and making predictions may become significantly more manageable. 


References:

Bell, K. (2018). Game on!: Gamification, gameful design, and the rise of the gamer educator. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press.

Liu, H. (2016, October 6) “Do this one thing to make your product sticky” Retrieved from: https://medium.com/startup-grind/do-this-one-thing-to-make-your-product-sticky-aa8ed6d55797

Siyahhan, S. and Gee, E. “Understanding gaming and gender within the everyday lives of Mexican-American family homes” in Kafai, Y. B., et al (Eds.) Diversifying Barbie and Mortal Kombat: Intersectional perspectives and inclusive designs in gaming. (pp. 92-104) Retrieved from: https://via.hypothes.is/http://remikalir.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SiyahhanGee2016.pdf#annotations:r_kS6Fv1EeqMJZ-Cn3IXnQ 

Stevens, R., T. Satwicz, and L. McCarthy (2008). “In-Game, In-Room, In-World: Reconnecting Video Game Play to the Rest of Kids’ Lives.” in Salen, K. (Ed.)The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. (pp. 41–66.) doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.041

Game Review: 5-Second Rule

Posted on by

We received this game as a family gift last month and had not yet tried it, so we decided to open and play it last weekend. Although rated for ages 10 to adult, I played it successfully with my eight- and ten-year old children with minimal adjustment. The game play is straightforward and fast-moving.

Game components consist of a box containing 288 cards with a question on each side and a five-second timer made of ball bearings rolling down a spiral ramp contained within a narrow cylinder. When the tiny balls reach the bottom of the ramp, a player’s five seconds is finished. In those five seconds, a player answers the question on one side of the card. Each question consists of the words “Name 3” followed by a category. In our case, categories included phrases like “Ways to keep warm in winter,” “Floor exercises,” “Foods served at Thanksgiving,” and “Essential oils.”

Game play is simple. When it is a player’s turn, the player to their left reads the question on a card, and they provide three answers that fit the given category within the five-second timer run. If they cannot think of three examples, the player to their right gets the next opportunity to try, with the restriction that they cannot use any of the answers already proffered. A card moves to the right until someone is able to meet the criteria and gets to keep the card, or it arrives back to the original player, in which case, that player gets to keep it. Before starting the game, players decide how many rounds to play. The rules suggest two or three rounds for a large group, or more for a smaller group. We opted for five rounds for our first try, and the game took about fifteen minutes. At the end of the game, the player with the most cards wins. The only adjustment we made for younger players was skipping a few categories like “Celebrities that shouldn’t be celebrities” and “Facebook posts that annoy everyone” because they were well outside of my kids’ sphere of experience. Beyond that, play went smoothly, and we had a fairly even game. I won, but by a single card. I finished with six cards, my eight-year-old with five, and my ten-year-old got four. They surprised me with a few categories for which they had ready and solid answers. (For example, I would have been entirely stumped by “Brands of shoe,” but my daughter had no trouble listing three, with time to spare.) 

I see a few possibilities for application of this game to learning situations. It can be used even with large groups, and can give students practice with social skills like turn-taking and following rules. When there is disagreement about the relevance of an answer, the instructions say that the group should decide together whether or not to accept it. This negotiation and group discussion in a relatively low-stakes setting offers further opportunity for developing social skills. While Takeuchi & Vaala (2014) focused on digital games in their article, some of the positive effects that they noted in co-play are the improvement of social skills like “collaboration, communication, and negotiation.” (p.48) It seems reasonable those skills could extend to in-person, offline games, and this one seems a good candidate. 

I could also see adapting the game to a class’s subject matter by creating, or assigning students to create, new category cards that relate to the topic being studied. For example, in a chemistry class, questions at the early part of the year might include “Name 3 diatomic molecules,” or “Name 3 polyatomic ions.” These are fundamental concepts that students are expected to learn thoroughly enough to facilitate rapid recall, so this could be a way to practice that type of topic. The new variations could be used in groups to review for a quiz, and the process of creating the questions would engage students with their notes or texts to craft reasonable categories. It would also be interesting to see it used to present opportunities for discussion about more flexible ideas like “3 cases where molecule polarity matters” or “3 uses for acid-base reactions.” These would be cases where a timer would be best omitted, but could lead to some deeper discussions. These types of adaptations are opportunities for teachers to exercise agency and creativity in new questions and ways to explore student knowledge or reasoning. (Kalir, 2016)

Alternatively, I thought of using a single card per day that might be used as an exit ticket or participation evidence, to demonstrate something a student has absorbed during the class. In general, I am not in favor of speed tasks, as some learners process information more slowly than others, and differences in communication skills can seriously diminish the fun for certain students, as they struggle to get answers out in time. To adjust for that, perhaps a different, longer timer could be used, or no timer at all. Perhaps the category could be both posted visually and read aloud and students given a few moments to jot answers on a card. All students could display their cards together  in large or small groups, and outliers could be discussed. After reading Fowler et al (2019,) I am unconvinced that this very constrained type of answer would give strong formative information at the end of a class period, as it does not present good opportunity for students to explain their knowledge or lack of understanding about a topic. However, as an occasional quick check-in, if students enjoy the model, it might make for a fun alternative to a more involved usual ticket style.  

I found the noise of the timer distracting, which may be another rationale for minimizing the use of the official version in most educational uses. The five-second limit was an additional challenge. It made even categories for which I would typically generate a long list seem very difficult to name three entries. I wonder whether the game could help learners develop strategies for dealing with time pressure and the difficulties inherent in trying to think constructively about a particular topic when stressed or under a short deadline. 

Overall, we enjoyed the game. It was fast-paced, and it is possible to finish a game very quickly. I also appreciate the simplicity of the game because it is so adaptable. We had no trouble skipping cards that didn’t fit, game length is eminently adjustable, different timer options are easily arranged, and the paradigm is so simple that creating new cards for nearly any purpose could be either a quick exercise for a teacher, or a thoughtful one for learners, depending on what the instructional goals might be.

References

Fowler, K., Windschitl, M., & Richards, J. (2019, April-May). Exit tickets: Understanding students, adapting instruction, and addressing equity. The Science Teacher, 86(8), 18+. Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A581990226/EAIM?u=auraria_main&sid=EAIM&xid=dc743d48

Kalir, J. (2016). Good game: on the limitations of puzzles and possibilities for gameful learning [Conclusion]. In Williams-Pierce, C (Ed.), Teacher pioneers: Visions from the edge of the map (pp. 359-371). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press. Retrieved from: https://via.hypothes.is/http://remikalir.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Kalir-2016-Pioneers-Conclusion.pdf 

Takeuchi, L. M. & Vaala, S. (2014). Level-Up Learning: A national survey on teaching with digital games. Retrieved from: https://via.hypothes.is/http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/jgcc_leveluplearning_final.pdf