Ancestors

Comment

Comment by Dolly Joseph on April 10, 2010 at 9:43am

well-- there are so many types of computer/device/video games that in order to talk comparatively with "traditional" games I think we establish the critical variables. Clearly we have the rules which establish the game play, but we also have length of play, team structure (individuals/teams), length of game, (a)synchronous, face to face vs remote, visuals and sound. What are other variables are important?

I've been playing chess on my iphone and I have been struck by how it's really just a faster version of correspondence chess which was very popular last century.

Comment by Pierre Corbeil on April 9, 2010 at 1:48pm

Glad to have you discuss the question ! Perhaps I should not have used the word, draw ! I was referring to the web of relations: who could or could not be allied to whom, why certain actions had been taken, and so on. It is true that in my research, the game students did better on memory tests than did lecture students, likely because they spent so much time playing with the information, but my question is about time, actual involvement, and interaction among the participants. I am also wondering if something has been lost with technology: what is gained in one way is lost in another ?
I would be inclined to agree that having students be active in learning is the key element, and not the form of communication. A colourful medium will attract interest, but will not affect learning if there is no activity. The question turns on whether one type of activity is more engaging than another, and if the variables are technological.

Comment by Dolly Joseph on April 8, 2010 at 8:31pm

Of course. Identification and memory are on the lowest rungs of Bloom's Taxonomy. My students learn countries of the world through playing Free Rice. Do you have empirical evidence that those students could identify those country borders now? I'm also curious about your stating that they could draw and redraw the borders. From scratch? In what context? I think what media we use to instruct is way less important than what students actually do.

Comment by Pierre Corbeil on April 5, 2010 at 6:55pm

The young folk wondering about paper and cardboard games may be also be wondering about the photo that figureheads this ship. The professor on the left is me, so that a comparison of the two photos is a warning of what is to come for people under forty.
The game is an improved version of Diplomacy, with a world map, and wooden pieces cut out for me by my late father-in-law (who occupied the honorable trade of plumber). With a simple color map of the world, and rules for the production and movement of those pieces, the students - those in the photo are now in their early forties - could draw and redraw the international web of the 20th century. The countries became their territory, and the countries became their family. Question: could the same result, of identification and memory, be accomplished with on-line play, and clicking commands ?
The answer would tell us something about the key elements in games. Let us not forget an important datum: the game lasted for something like 35 hours.