Analysis of Puzzle, Quiz, and Sports Games

Learners’ Styles

Based on Kolb’s Learning Styles
I work with K-2 students during a very short amount of whole group time (30 minutes), and a larger portion of the learning day devoted to small group learning (60 minutes). My students lean toward a combination of a Converging and Accommodating style of learning. During small groups they are asked to complete activates or tasks that relate to the whole group instruction or skills that they have learned. The Converging style allows them to simulate situations, and use the skills learned to apply them to real world applications. They are able to find solutions to problems by using their prior knowledge, as well as use those skills to experiment with new thoughts and ideas. My students are also very ‘hands-on’. Working together in small groups can provide many opportunities for the Accommodating learning style.
It may seem that these two types of learning style are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, they actually work cohesively in my classroom. I feel that I can reach most types of learners when there is diversity in the learning styles. My students are allowed to make choices as they move independently through their learning stations. As they are working on their list of activates they are able to work independently or in groups which allows them to choose the learning style that fits them.

Based on Prensky’s List
My recent K-2 students do not have much experience with computers in their homes. My students come from very poor families, and in many situations, computers are not accessible or very outdated. Those students who do have computers in their homes, and based on conversations I have had with them about how they are used, primarily use them for games, or the kids are not allowed to use them because they are for adult use. That said, based on Prensky’s List of cognitive style changes, I had a hard time narrowing down just one that fit the style of my students. They may not have computers in the home, but they do have video games, and most are the current gaming stations available. Here are the ones that I feel best relates to the students that I work with.

Graphics First vs. Text First is a style of learning that is based on the visual aspect of the game where the player receives most of the information from the high amount of graphics and little or no amounts of accompanying text. These games or videos use text in just the right places, to help tell the story, allow the user to make decisions that could help them to go further in the levels of the game. They feel success when they complete a level of the game, and are highly interested by the virtual connections that they make. Many of my students who come in with these types of playing backgrounds do well with computer games in the classroom and will want to go to the computer station as a first choice.

Play vs. Work is a learning style that builds in many concepts and skills into a computer game. While the player is playing a game, they are also learning skills, concepts, building comprehension, reasoning, and working on other academic areas all while they think and feel that they are just “playing” a game. This style makes learning more fun, and easier to retain, since it is a style they are used to. In my experience, many of these games can be chosen by skill, allowing the students to advance as they master the level of that skill. A very simple telling time game that comes to mind isn’t as complex as some games can be, however, it is still a two-player game that involves a skill worked on in the classroom. This game gives the players the feeling of playing a game and at the same time, they are working on skills related to whole group instruction. http://www.hbschool.com/activity/willy/willy.html

Payoff vs. Patience is a learning style that rewards gamers as they play with levels, wins, or high scores. The feedback that the gamers receive is highly rewarding as they continue to work toward the next goal and playing for extended amounts of time. Many older students will work toward “beating” a game and spend countless hours playing trying to reach that goal. If playing an internet game that may be a little slower, they will continue to wait as it loads or creeps along to try and achieve the title of the highest scorer or until they master specific levels. In my experience, these are games that may have codes or levels that can be saved and returned to later. Most of these games are not in appropriate time frames for school, but they are definitely games that are played at home and are those that kids enjoy.

Analysis of Games

Luxor 2
This game is a product of the company Big Fish Games, developed by Paul Thelen in 2002. Thelen works in the gaming industry as a way to renew his love of game design. Over the years, he has brought in other standout gamers to help develop more exciting programs and affiliates around the world (http://www.bigfishgames.com/company/bfg-story.html).

Luxor 2 takes you on a journey through Egypt. By way of map, each stopping point, or level, challenges you to master the chains of spheres by eliminating a series of three or more of the same color, or type, in a row. The long chains of spheres work their way toward you in hopes to gain control of you and your pyramid. The players must work quickly to eliminate the chains that are speeding toward them while catching coins, jewels, power-ups, and other bonuses. There are 3 difficulty levels, which have levels within levels, dozens of power-ups, and high scoring options.

Who Wants to Win $1,000,000?
The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab), creators of Who Wants to Win $1,000,000?, is a worldwide facility for scientists, with the primary goal of conducting research of the atom’s nucleus. Through public outreach and advanced technology, the Jefferson Lab wants to help further education in science and technology by providing opportunities for discovery (http://www.jlab.org/visitors/).

This game provides challenging questions about math and science in hopes to gain a million dollars, fake money of course! As you begin at the bottom level, or easiest level, multiple-choice questions are asked. Each level completed takes you up the money ladder, questions answered incorrectly will drop you down to zero dollars or to the last insured level. If the question seems a little tough, or you just have no idea of the answer, there are three chances for the player to ask for help, poll the lab, 50/50, and ask an expert. Each of the three helps can be used at anytime, and guide the player to the correct answer.

Comparison 1: Game Components

Luxor 2 Game Components
1. Rules
2. Organization-clear goals to be obtained by playing the game.
3. Players
4. Competition/leveled play
5. Conflict/Resolution
6. Interaction
7. Amusement
8. Safety

Strong Components of Luxor 2
The rules and goals are quite clear, working to complete a chain of three or more spheres that will release jewels, bonuses, or power-ups. As the player completes chains of spheres, they move toward a new level of difficulty in hopes battle the god Set and his evil minions, thus enhancing the conflict and resolution of the game. The game is based on leveled play that gives the player 3 lives with a chance of earning more to complete this task.

The interaction between the player and the game is quite high, as the player has to move quickly and be alert of which color sphere is coming next to fire, where the possible chains to blast are, and how quickly the chains are moving. At times, as the levels increase, there are two chains to watch out for. This game is amusing and safe to play; it holds the attention of the players with colorful and strong audio-visual effects.

The educational connection of matching colors, like objects, and using strategies to complete the longest chain provide math practices through play. This game aligns with the Play vs. Work style of learning of Prensky’s List. There is only one player involved in the game, and the game goes full screen, so there are not any other online distractions which helps the game to be played in a safe environment.

Weak Components of Luxor 2
The game only allows one player, which isn’t necessarily a weak component, but if you have two or more players and only one computer, the game could potentially take some time to play. Payoff vs. Patience from Prensky’s List, states that players who like these types of games could potentially wait, and play quite a long time because as they advance in levels, time is definitely a factor. Time makes the game a weak component if using it in the classroom. Those students who master levels with ease will want to continue on. If played in a small group or station setting, there may not be time enough to complete the game to the level that they would like, and this would make it hard for the players who have the patience to cease play. There isn’t a way to save the levels previously completed, so as new players return to the game, they would have to start from the beginning.

Who Wants to Win $1,000,000? Game Components
1. Rules
2. Organization-clear goals to be obtained by playing the game.
3. Players
4. Chance
5. Competition/leveled play
6. Amusement
7. Interaction
8. Safety

Strong Components of Who Wants to Win $1,000,000?
The rules are very clear and organized. There is a separate rules page that explains to players in very understandable language how to play. The game is set up to support a single player game, however, the game could be used in small groups, or whole group settings allowing the players to work together to answer the questions and advance toward the goal of the pretend million dollar prize. Group play fosters the idea of discussion as students discuss answers, look up answers, review incorrect answers, work problems, and learn new concepts.

The opportunity for chance increases, as the questions for each money level become more difficult, and are randomly chosen by the game. Competition and amusement continue throughout the levels of play, each money level proves to be harder and visually keeps track of the money levels complete. If there is one wrong answer then the game is finished, so the stakes are high while trying to advance through the levels.

The game is played in a safe environment, and is very easy to continue throughout the game with easy clicks for the answers. If a question is answered incorrectly, the game will offer the answer and a chance to play again. There are no pop-ups or other major distractions that would alter the game play.

Weak Components of Who Wants to Win $1,000,000?
The level of interaction is not as high as games with more advanced graphics and audio. This game provides more of an intellectual challenge and becomes more intrinsic as the players move up in money levels. Players who like the very interactive components of game play, and lots of visual stimulation may play the game, but would prefer something with more interaction. Players who are considered in the Graphics First vs. Text First style of learning group would struggle a little with continuing play on this game. I believe to help enhance this style of learner, the small group play would allow for interaction that is missing with the high level of graphics and video components.

Comparison of Both Games
In comparing the two chosen games, both have a very well laid out and understandable set of clear rules and goals. Both games are organized, using leveled play, with one main player as the focus making the competition more intrinsic. Interaction is highly amusing in both games, however, created differently in each game. In the Luxor 2 game, the interaction is more visual, and in the Who Wants to Win $1,000,000? game, the interaction is more intellectual recalling prior knowledge and synthesizing it with new knowledge learned from missed question. Both games could fit into the Payoff vs. Patience style of learning. Both games take time and effort to play, and depending on which style the player likes the best, they could play both games for an extended period of time. Finally, both games are fall into the safe gaming environment. The games do not ask for personal information or passwords to complete, and there are not excessive ads that can be clicked on while navigating the games.

Learners’ Styles
The best-fit game for my K-2 students would be the Luxor 2 game. Based on Kolb’s learning styles, this game fits the Converging style because they are doing and thinking throughout this game. In a one-player style of game, they are able to work toward the goal while problem solving and finding solutions like matching the colors, or strategizing to build the longest chain of spheres. The game is not applicable for multiple players, so as the students are working alone to complete the levels of play, they feel success as they gain points and complete levels.

Compared to Prensky’s List, this game fulfills the learning styles of Graphics vs. Text First; it is highly visual and interactive much like video games that my students are used to. They would enjoy this game because they would think they are playing, and not realize they are really working, as in the Play vs. Work style of learning. My student’s would find this game a challenge and highly entertaining because it is more like an arcade game, they would show great levels of patience while completing the game. It would be very hard to pull them from this game, as it quickly becomes addicting.

The least-fit game would be Who Wants to Win $1,000,000? While it fits the descriptions Kolb’s style of learning and Prensky’s style of learning, the prior knowledge needed for the game is not age appropriate for my K-2 students.