Quote
"They take educational content and do something to make it look like a game (i.e. put algebra problems in a 3D virtual world, or place the periodic table of the elements into a shooting arcade). While there may be educational potential in such an approach, these games often "suck," as Ted Castranova found and documented in a recent article in WIRED (Baker, 2008). Just because it looks like a game, doesn't make it a game."
-..Moving Learning Games Forward (MIT)..
Evaluations
The Evaluation Tool is based on four components - all are important considerations in evaluating an online math game as an effective means for teaching and learning.
CONTENT
Informed by the Common Core State Standards from both (1) the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)’s Process Standards and (2) the National Research Committee (NRC)’s Strands of Mathematical Proficiency
TEACHERS
Informed by three fourth and fifth grade teachers at a local elementary school, interviewed on the topic as part of a doctoral qualitative studies class
STUDENTS
Informed by various students at a local elementary school
DESIGN
Informed by issues included in the literature on educational games
Below, find the details of each component used to evaluate each game.
Evaluation Tool – How “GOOD” is this online math game for the middle grades (3 - PreAlgebra)?
Name of Game: ______________________________________
Item |
Score |
|||
CONTENT |
||||
Is the math content clear in the game? |
0 - NO |
1 - YES |
||
Is there variety in the mathematical tasks? |
0 - NO |
1 - YES |
||
Are there examples of the standards for |
0 - NO |
1- Yes, 1 |
2 – Yes, ≥ 2 |
|
There is a combination of Content & Process |
0 - NO |
1 - YES |
||
|
CONTENT TOTAL: |
|||
TEACHERS |
||||
The rules and scoring of the game are simple. |
0 – NO |
1- YES |
||
There is positive non-threatening competition. |
0 - NO |
1 - YES |
||
There is embedded scaffolding/differentiation. |
0 - NO |
1 - YES |
||
There is instructional value (suggestions for teachers to integrate and assess). |
0 - NO |
1 - YES |
||
The length of play is appropriate. |
0 - NO |
1 - YES |
||
|
TEACHERS TOTAL: |
|||
STUDENTS |
||||
Fun Factor - How much did students like to play? |
0 – NOT fun |
1- OK |
2 – LOVED it! |
|
User-friendly - Were students able to figure it out? (directions & functionality) |
0 - NO |
1 - YES |
||
Engagement - What degree of attention and effort did the students put forth? |
0 - Bored |
1 - Somewhat |
2- Extremely |
|
|
STUDENTS TOTAL: |
|||
DESIGN |
||||
Did the game allow multiple styles of play? |
0 - NO |
1- YES |
||
Was the math situated in a meaningful context? |
0 - NO |
1 - YES |
||
Did the players feel empowered and in control? (Did decisions have clear outcomes?) |
0 - NO |
1 - YES |
||
Did the game encourage social play? (competition, collaboration, communication) |
0 - NO |
1 -YES |
||
Was clear feedback provided AND computation of scoring clear? |
0 - NO |
1 -YES |
||
|
DESIGN TOTAL: |
|||
|
OVERALL TOTAL: |
|||
List of Content Standards: _______________________________________________________________
List of Practice Standards: _______________________________________________________________