Week 3 Reflection #etlead

I feel like this has been the most productive week thus far.  After contemplating and rating our criteria from week 2, we cut our list of 7 down to 6.  The top five criteria was rated differently for each person, based upon our feelings of importance. The last two criteria, however, were rated the same be all team members. The seventh criteria asked that the game demand emotional participation to clarify the value of the issue. Since I was the person who originally suggested this criteria, I suggested that we drop this criteria – 1) it was rated the lowest by everyone and 2) it is not needed for a game to be considered serious. The sixth criteria was collaboration.  Nobody suggested we drop it also, but I was willing to fight for it if they did. I feel that collaboration and teamwork are skills that many of our students lack, but need for the real world.

The team agreed on a rubric rather than a checklist.  We wanted something that would allow the user to be able to rate how each component is used or not used in the game. It came together rather fast, and then we spent a couple of days fine tuning it with simpler wording and assessment criteria.  I think it is detailed, yet simple, so that both educators and students will be able to easily assess the suitability of a serious game.

All of the learning that I achieved and contributed to this week was through the wiki page.  I began creating the rubric in a word document, and then pasted it into the wiki for feedback.  My teammates helped to complete the rubric.  Leslie reminded us that if the rubric is too long or difficult to understand, that it will not be used.  Therefore, I simplified my wording and also added some assessment criteria to certain areas, which was suggested by Keri.  I agreed that the percentages would make the criteria more measurable.  All in all, the team really worked well together to create.  The suggestions were all well received and the discussions helped to clarify everyone’s thoughts.

After finalizing the rubric, I then visited Vicki’s student’s wiki pages.  I was under the impression from Gary that we were to evaluate and contribute to team 2’s wiki page since we are team 2 in our own class.  They did not put much thought into the answers to their essential questions.  I focused on two of the essential questions myself.

What are examples of serious games?  I looked at their list of serious games and wanted to know if the students had tried out these particular game themselves.  I asked if they had reviewed the games, and if so, if they felt the games were educational and entertaining (being this is their definition of a serious game).

How can serious games be evaluated?  I decided to share the rubric we created with the students.  I also asked them to use the rubric to evaluate the three games they listed as their examples of serious games.  I thought it would be great to get their feedback on the effectiveness and ease of using the rubric.

Since I did not post to their rubric until the weekend, I was not expecting an immediate response.  As soon as I get some feedback, I will be able to share it.  Maybe for week 4’s reflection.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s