Analysis of Role-Playing Games and ELLs

A look at RPGs, their engaging nature in the classroom, and connections to language learning for ELLs

General information: Mission U.S.

Mission U.S. is a historical role playing game produced by WNET THIRTEEN (New York Public Media) supported by CPB and and the National Endowment for the Humanities.  The game is designed so that the player gets to be a young man (For Crown or Colony?) or young woman (Flight to Freedom) experiencing very realistic, historically based events and the choices these young people would likely have encountered in their lives at these turning points in history.

Choices presented to player at the end of
the prologue, before beginning Part 1.

In each game, the player has to decide what actions and choices they should make, and in what order.  The order makes a difference to the next event or conversation in the game, as does what choices they player makes when interacting with the NPCs (non-player characters). 

My first choices upon interacting with "momma" and "Henry"
after overhearing their conversation.

The player interacts with the world seamlessly through use of the mouse. Any object or NPC that is available to interact with is outlined in yellow when the mouse hovers over it.  Clicking on characters, objects, and areas of the world around them provide more and more information to help players form a schema of the historical setting to help them with decision making.

One of my tasks is to talk to my brother, Jonah.
When I hover my mouse over him, he is outlined in yellow.

Choices made during game-play resulted in earning different badges, which can be used during the story (at a crucial moment of conflict and decision) at the end of the story to “finish” the life-story of the character.  I thought it was fitting to show that the choices you make and the people who you allow to influence you early in life give you skills, experience, and wisdom/insight that you can use to build upon in the years to come. 

Analysis based on Flow Theory
For this analysis and discussion below, I chose to play Mission 2: Flight to Freedom.  Examples discussed in relation to Mike Csikszentmihalyi's Flow Theory are based off of game-play from the scenario of a young slave girl of 14 who is forced to flee her plantation in Kentucky to gain her freedom, and the choices she makes about slavery, her family, and life.

o   Task that the learners can complete: Does the game provide small sections that lead to the completion of the entire task?

In Mission U.S., Mission 2: Flight to Freedom, there were several missions and tasks within each of the five parts of the game; each part took approximately 20 minutes to complete, but would likely take younger students more time. 

Each task completed during game-play led to more information about the character’s life, family, and situation, giving the player more information to make choices within the game to earn different badges.  The game world was also very easy to explore, engaging learners who enjoy exploring to learn.  In adopting this learning style myself, it did not take long to discover how to accomplish tasks.

o   Ability to concentrate on task: Does the game world draw learners?
The characters are very well-designed and sympathetic – you want to know what will happen to them very quickly.  There is a prologue and an epilogue to each game.  The prologue provides some background for the character and their story before engaging directly in their world.

The world itself is rich, colorful, and full of life and noise.  While there is not a lot of actual movement when the player is attempting to navigate the world and complete tasks, the world itself if full of detail that draws the eyes and attention inward.

o   Task has clear goals: Does the game have components such as survival, collection of points, gathering of objects and artifacts, solving in puzzles?
Each task assigned for each part of the story was clearly stated by an NPC.  These tasks were listed at the top of the screen for me to refer to as needed, as you can see from screen shots above and below.  Tasks yet to complete were greyed out; tasks completed became colorful.  I could often choose the order to complete the tasks, giving more variation to game-play.

Tasks varied widely, from collecting items or information to searching for people, completing work, and making choices during interactions that would focus on one goal or another for the character or game-play.

o Task provides immediate feedback: Does the game respond to learners’ choice or movement?
Each choice made during game-play immediately results in feedback, either in the form of a comment made by the NPCs or in an event that comes next.  For example, I chose to hide some eggs from the chicken coop, which resulted in earning a badge, but also meant the supervisor “caught” what I did and gave me extra work as punishment.  Later in the game, during a conversation with a slave hunter, I had the choice to engage him or run.  Both had immediate reactions and consequences.

Choices presented prior to completing one of my chores.

The badge I earned for hiding eggs.

o   Deep but effortless involvement: Does the game create worlds that are far removed from what we know to be real?

      Because the game is easy to interact with and the graphics are so colorful, bright, and historically accurate, it was easy to begin to think of the choices presented to me as ones which had real consequences this young girl would have to live with.  You very much do not want her to get captured and sold back into slavery. 

It is true that this game is based on historical reality, not a fantasy scenario.  I feel that this is not a weakness, however, but a strength.  Making history come alive for students and give them an opportunity to interact within this long-past time and reality can help develop high-level thinking skills for students in the content of history.  They don’t just get to interact with history in a way where they are outside it, like at some historic sites with re-enactors, but they get to BE a part of the story, making choices and seeing consequences for their actions and decisions. 

The fact that this mission is centered around slavery will make it difficult for some students to be empathetic to choices that seemed to, though not supporting slavery, turned the other way to it.  However, it is well-known that many slaves survived by “keeping your head down”; these options available to the character might need to be discussed with students to help them build empathy for the very harsh and real situation many experienced and lived with for their entire lives. 

o   Exercising a sense of control over their actions: Does the game allow learners determine paths?
The choices given to you during interactions and tasks were nicely varied and realistic.  I noticed that there were almost “themes” among the choices available for players to choose from.  I could have my character be bold, brave, and confrontational (by choosing sabotage on the plantation, to learn to shoot a gun instead of study, etc) or choose paths that focused on family, others, or learning along the way.  As mentioned before, these choices earn badges that affect what choices can be made later during game-play and at the conclusion of play.

o   Concern for self disappears during flow: Does the game provide an environment that is a simulation of life and death? Does the game allow decision or activity that might dangerous “only” in the game world?
The scenario and background information presented during the Prologue and early in the game made you feel very connected to the character you were playing.  You wanted to see her succeed and become free, and I often felt challenged and unsure of what choices were the right ones to help me achieve this goal.  The game is designed to be challenging and make players feel uncertain about their ability to become and then stay free.

Again, with the topic of Mission 2 being slavery, which is such an emotional and moral topic, it was sometimes hard for me to consider what I would do if I was really a slave.  I know what I would do as a free white woman, but those choices were not always the best for the character in the story.  I found it hard, but necessary, to change my thinking. 

o   Sense of duration of time is altered: Does the game allow learners play year-long tasks in hours or minutes? Does it make learners lose track of time? Does it make learners’ perception of time distorted?
The story moves quickly, with most parts taking only a day or two of  “time”, depending on the choices made by the player.  Time mostly passes between parts, as is evidenced by announcements of the time, date, or other information given in a narrative at the beginning and end of each part.

Analysis with ELLs

I chose this game from the list available this week because I thought it might be the most applicable for the ELLs I currently work with at the elementary level.  US History is typically taught in 5^th grade, and, while this is the lower end of the grade/age range recommended by the developers, I felt it might still be applicable for these students.  While the level of language is fairly complex, making the game more challenging for lower level ELP students, they game is well-designed, interactive, interesting, and gives players multiple choices to investigate the historical world and to explore and develop their opinions of the historical events.

Cornillie et al. (2011) write a wonderful research article about the challenges and benefits of RPGs and ELLs.  They write that the language in RPGs are very demanding on language and literacy skills (RPGs “undeniably contain themost language of all game genres” p.132) and often are only accessible to more proficient students of English.  They argue, over the course of the paper, that language needs to explicitly be a part of the instructional and methodological frameworks of educational games for ELLs to be able to access the benefits of RPGs in an educational context (Cornillie et al., 2011).  Suggestions made in the paper to support and facilitate vocabulary acquisition during adventure and RPG games include: providing context and use for new words, highlighting new and important words in transcripts of interactions, and defining the words for players on the screen in a designated area. 

One element of this game that showed a strong connection to the ideas presented by Cornillie et al was the “literacy badge”.  When players interact with NPCs, ask questions, and learn more about the situation/scenario, important vocabulary words specific to the content and context of this historical scenario appear in yellow.  The character (and player) can learn new vocabulary words (usually related to slavery and abolition) by clicking on them and reading the definitions.  Searching for and clicking on these new vocabulary words helps her to learn to read better, and earn literacy badges at the end of each part. 

My first Smartword found.

Explanation of Smartwords student sees. 

There was an option to check these “smartwords” at the bottom of the screen.  Clicking that box brings up a menu of smartwords seen by the player, who can click on them to see the definitons again.
  

Your Smartwords collected during game play can
be accessed at the bottom of the screen at any time. 

Language presented during interactions was also in short, precise amounts and was typically no more than two sentences long.  For the conversation to continue, the reader had to either select a response or click “More” to hear the next piece from the NPC.  This allows “opportunities for noticing” language that might be new, unusual, or be used in these new contexts for ELLs (Cornillie et al, 2011, p.136).  However, there was no way that I saw to have the NPCs repeat their sentences.  Adding that option would allow all students to hear these new, content-specific vocabulary words again in context before moving on with the game.  There was also no place or way for the player to use the words; “producing [language] in meaningful contexts” is important for new language and vocabulary to become a part of the language structure and schema of the ELL student (Cornillie et al., 2011, p.136).  

Creation of student-generated dictionaries made during game-play to collect and write definitions of smart words would be a useful tool for students to have on hand to refer to during continued game-play over several days or sessions, as well as an excellent resource to use to enhance ELL language and participation in class activities, discussions, and student writing about the game.

I cannot conclude this post without mentioning one last thing about integrating game-play with classroom use.  The choices offered to the player during conversations are very thought provoking.  A teacher could easily have students complete one “mission” (part) of the game at a time, then share and discuss their game-play, choices, and results from their choices with peers.  Reflective writing assignments could help students construct and infer what life was like for individuals and the challenges within the conflicts they experienced.  Resources for each mission are available for teachers when using this RPG in their classrooms.  

Reference:

Cornillie, F., Jacques, I., De Wannemacker, S., Paulussen, H., and Desmet, P. (2011). Vocabulary treatment in adventure and role-playing games: A playground for adaptation and adaptivity. Retrieved July 18, 2013 from: http://www.academia.edu/2487222/Vocabulary_Treatment_in_Adventure_and_Role-Playing_Games_A_Playground_for_Adaptation_and_Adaptivity

Digital vs Non-digital Games

Card & Board Games: An analysis of digital vs non-digital components

For this week's assignment, we were given links to various card and board games with online versions, such as hearts, backgammon, and Agricola.  While exploring Agricola, I was struck by some of its similarities to another game my family and friends often play together, The Settlers of Catan.  

Anyone out there who loves board games should really explore some of the really wonderful games developed by a few well-known and loved German-style board game designers, such as Klaus Teuber (Settlers of Catan),  Leo Colovini (Carcassonne), and Alan R. Moon (Ticket to Ride).  If you're more of a card game player, Dominion is a card game in the German style as well.  I highly recommend them all, and  can promise lots of challenging, good-clean fun; but I can't promise that they aren't habit-forming.  You won't look at board games the same way after experiencing these or other German-style board games.

 Because the assignment was to focus on only one game, I have chosen to focus on The Settlers of Catan.  Catan is a well-known and much-loved game that is simple enough to explain game-play on this blog, but complex enough that digital and non-digital formats affect perception of game-play. 


General information: explanation of game-play

The Settlers of Catan original game is a 3-4 player game.  Extension packs are available to make the game 5-6 player or to add new scenarios and options to game-play.  We will focus on the basic game for today's post.

To begin, each player must select an area to "settle" on the board at intersections of the board pieces (hexagonal shapes called "hexes").  Once every player has selected two locations on the board and placed their first two settlements and beginning road sections, play may begin.  

Online tutorial game guides player to place first settlement.

Hexes where players settle "produce" one of five resources: wood, brick, sheep, wheat, and ore.  When the die are rolled, the hex with the number corresponding to the die roll "produce" for that round for any and all players settled on that hex.  A player will need to use the resources they receive at die roles carefully to win the game.  Trading among players and with "the bank" for resources you do not have is encouraged.  It is difficult to win the game without access to a variety of resources or no trading options.  However, you cannot collect too many cards.  Whenever a 7 is rolled with the die, the Robber is activated, any player with more than 7 cards in their hand looses half, and the Robber must be moved by the current player to another hex on the board.  If another player is settled adjacent to that hex, the current player may steal a resource card from the other player.  Whatever hex a Robber is on cannot produce goods until he is removed, which may take several rounds until another 7 is rolled or a player plays a Knight card (discussed below). 

Tutorial game explaining stealing resources.

There are many different strategies a player can take to win the game using their available resources.  Resources can be used for several actions during a player's turn: building (which includes roads, settlements, cities) and buying a development card.  Development cards often contain points or other helpful actions for the player.  The most common development card is the Knight.  The Knight can move the Robber off of any hex and onto a new one; the player moving the Robber is then allowed to steal a resource from another player settled adjacent the new hex. 

Points are also awarded for longest road, largest army (of played Knight cards), settlements (+1), and cities (+2).  Game play is concluded when a player achieves 10 Victory Points. 


Comparison of formats: digital vs non-digital
Comparison 1: Game components

Set-up:

The online version had the obvious advantage of set-up.  It usually takes me 5-10 minutes to set up the board version, depending on how many players there are and which extension pack I use.  Each piece is separate (hexes, border, and ports) and must be randomized for best game-play.  With the online version, game-play could begin much faster as the board is randomized by the computer (in the registered and paid versions, not in the tutor).  Also, the board is rather complex in itself; the hex pieces fit well together, but do not "snap" into place or stay put.  Slight bumps by players can dislodge hexes, upsetting the number indicators placed upon them or players' settlement and road pieces.  

The online version single-player version also affords players a faster pace when played with computer opponents instead of human ones.  I was able to play a full round of the game within 40 minutes (I cannot say what the pace is like with other human players interacting in the online version).  A fast board game with experiences players would usually last at least a full hour.  With 5-6 players, I have been in games that lasted at least two hours.   

Cards:
The biggest difference I saw in the game components was the look and "feel" of the resource and development cards and their use.  In the digital games, the cards have designated areas on the players' display where they belong and are organized.  In the non-digital version, each player can organize their cards however they may like.  For example, as I am preparing to use cards for an upcoming action, I might group them together in my hand or on the table in front of me.  In the digital version, such "designation" and grouping is impossible, so I had to me more conscious of my strategy.  While other players' actions can affect one's strategy, I felt I had to work harder to not be distracted by other players' actions since there was no way to "note" or "track" my own.  

Trading was also more abstract with the online digital version of the game.  This, along with the difficulty of "tracking" where and how I wanted to use my resources, made me miss having the tangible, non-digital resource and development cards.  Ip and Cooperstock (2011) stated in the conclusion of their study of digital vs non-digital versions of The Settlers of Catan that "preference of tangible components over digital equivalents for complex interaction tasks such as card trading was demonstrated by the significant differences between the virtual and tangible conditions in many areas of the questionnaire" (p. 454).

Comparison 2: Interaction

Within the online "tutor" version, there were major differences among "player" interaction.  

During each player's turn, they are able to trade with other players.  Trading is component of the game where interaction is built into the game.  With the online version with digital cards and resources, you have to ask for a specific resource when offering a trade with other players.  Frequently in the non-digital format, trades are called out as, "What would someone give me for sheep?", making known what resource was available, but not requesting a specific one in return.  Also, the digital trade could not be directed at a specific player, but at all.  Each player would then respond with their choice to accept or reject.  The player who initiated the trade could then accept or decline any accepted offer.  This allows the player to decline a trade with someone who might be closer to achieving 10 Victory Points than they are. 

My offer to trade was declined by both computer players (indicated by the thumbs down),
so I will trade four resources (ore) to the bank for the one I need (wheat). 

While there can be a lot of wheeling-and-dealing occurring during the non-digital version, it was impossible to negotiate in the demo version online.  I would love to see how this plays in the multi-player internet version, but I haven't had the opportunity to do so yet, since multi-player game-play is paid only.  Based on the format the online version has for trading, there might be a possibility for negotiation to occur: after I initiated a trade offer, the computer players would have a comment bubble appear next to them.  However, trade online might not be as fast-paced or as engaging and rewarding as it is during non-digital game-play if more than one human player is involved.  

Game Definition:

When comparing the digital and non-digital versions of The Settlers of Catan within my definition of a game, both versions are very strong in nearly all elements (organized rules, exists outside ordinary life, fun, conflict, challenging goal, uncertainty of outcome).  The biggest difference between the two was in interaction with others.  Though trading is available with the computer players in the online version, interaction is not nearly as stimulating and variable as with human players.  With other humans sitting around the same table, you can build alliances, team-up against the player with the most Victory Points, and other such complex interactions that the anonymity of the computerized version does not nurture.  It is my opinion that these rich, very human interactions, though not mentioned in the rules (either encouraged or forbidden) naturally occur from all of the other strong game components that make a good game.  Something about being in the same room as the other players encourages these interactions and cannot be truly replicated in a strictly digital version.  

In a study conducted by Ip and Cooperstock (2011), players who experienced both digital, "classic" (non-digital), and TAR (Tangible Automatic Reality - part physical, part digital components) of this game rated the purely digital version as their least favorite version overall, with the lowest scores in "perceived usability" and "negative effect" on ratings of personal game experience and "empathy" as the lowest score of ratings for social experience.  It is this component of empathy with other players during game play that enriches the trading phases of the game and makes them the driving factor of both game-play and the interactions central to the enjoyment of game-play.  Close human-to-human interactions during trading make the game extremely engaging and add a huge variable component that makes each game-play very different and exciting.  

iPad App:

My husband and I also experimented with the iPad app of this game recently.  While it was also strong on the gaming components,  we found trading to again be the most complicated component with this other digital form.  It is important in game-play that your opponents do NOT see your resource and development cards, especially if you are trying to make a trade that will be very favorable to you.  With the iPad version, you have to pass the iPad back and forth between players so each player can see their cards, but not the others'.  This can be very complicating when trying to negotiate trades with others.  Frequently, players need to be able to see your cards and the board while considering the consequences of a trade offer being made, and this is sacrificed in the set-up in order to have a way for the resource cards to remain private.  

For someone looking for a way to relax by themselves or wants to enjoy a fast game, the online or iPad version works beautifully.  For someone who enjoys the interactions and negotiations of game-play, the online version might not be their preferred format.  

Application for ELLs: 
Thoughts on digital vs non-digital formats for classroom use

As I have discussed in the past two posts, ELLs tend to prefer more concrete elements to work with to support their English language development.  Keeping this in mind, it would be best to introduce a new game with tangible, non-digital components first, allowing them to learn how each component and piece "moves" and is important to the flow and to achieving goal of the game.  Tangible elements offer more concrete context for ELLs to be able to negotiate how to communicate about their understanding of the game within the game.  Having all components within the digital realm takes some of that context away from these students; if they have questions, a tangible, non-digital realm allows them to manipulate the components to SHOW what they want to communicate as they also verbally explain it.  In a purely digital format, they must find a way to abstractly explain their ideas, and this can be very difficult and frustrating to ELLs of emerging or beginning language proficiency, hindering their enjoyment of the experience and the learning experiences they could take-away from it.  

Ip and Cooperstock (2011) also mentioned in their findings that "retain[ing] tangible components used for making strategic choices while digitizing pieces used for simple, mundane tasks such as the ones required for board setup" were the preferences of their study group, indicating that some combination of tangible, concrete components and digital, automatic ones actually supported better, more engaging and meaningful game-play.  While online resources and games can benefit all learners, learning to recognize when an online game is not effectively supporting the more complex aspects of strategic problem-solving and decision-making processes and/or the learning styles of our students will make educators more able to evaluate the use and benefit of these resources in our classrooms.


References:

Ip, J. and Cooperstock, J. (2011). To virtualize or not? The importance of physical and virtual components in augmented reality board games. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 6972, 2011, pp 452-455. Retrieved from: http://www.cim.mcgill.ca/sre/publications/2011-ICEC.pdf

Quiz & Sports Games: an analysis of learning styles

In this blog post, I will discuss different views on learning styles and their relations to ELLs and quiz/sports games, using one online quiz game and one game idea that can be used in the classroom as examples for this analysis.

Learning Styles

Kolb’s learning styles:

As I have previously described my thoughts on ELLs learning styles in my discussion of the simulation game CellCraft, I will not revisit that in great detail here, but will summarize that discussion by saying that ELLs who are young or are in the beginning stages of their second language development tend to be Accommodating (CE – Concrete experience & AE - Active experimentation) or Diverging (CE & RO – Reflective Observation).  Of course, the student’s individual learning style can vary as widely as their native English-speaking peers, so each teacher must be looking for those preferences underlying the Accommodating or Diverging preferences exhibited due to developing language skills. 

Accommodating learners need to learn by doing.  For ELLs new to U.S. classrooms and the English language, this may mean lots of failure before they are successful.  Teachers can help these learners by giving them a buddy to work with them as a team – this will give ELLs a chance to practice language skills as they talk about their actions, choices, and decisions to accomplish a task.  Teachers can keep ELLs of this learning style from becoming discouraged and frustrated with their non-successful attempts by helping them to track their growth at the task and the language they are acquiring through the task.  This will help them to continue to make the effort and meet the challenges put before them in the classroom. 

Diverging learners want to watch before they try, and they will often be sensitive to cultural differences, especially if they feel these differences are negative toward their native culture and perceptions.  ELLs will sometimes lack confidence in their abilities in the classroom, confusing language proficiency with cognitive ability to be successful at a task.  Teachers can help these learners by modeling first, encouraging participation with scaffolding, accepting all efforts to communicate (content, not form), and by fostering an environment that validates all perspectives and sees diversity as something to enrich all students’ learning.

Prensky’s Cognitive Style Changes:

Because my students are younger, elementary-age learners, they fall under Prensky’s category for individuals part of the “‘Nintendo children’--those born after 1970 and raised on video and computer games, Walkmans, the Internet, etc.”, and who prefer more active, engaging, fast-past experiences in life and learning opportunities (Twitch Speed, online).  Prensky lists ten differences in cognitive style of the “video game generations” and their predecessors:

1.      Twitch speed          vs    conventional speed

2.      Parallel processing  vs    linear processing

3.      Random access       vs    linear thinking

4.      Graphics first          vs    text first

5.      Connected              vs    stand-alone

6.      Active                     vs     passive

7.      Play                         vs    work

8.      Payoff                     vs     patience

9.      Fantasy                    vs    reality

10.  Technology as friend vs   technology as foe

He argues that these new shifts in cognitive and learning styles are neither better nor worse than how previous generations viewed the world and learning.  In fact, he states that they offer many positive changes, but that is a discussion for another time.

Younger learners will tend to score consistently toward the newer cognitive preferences, with varying strengths and preferences depending on personality and access to technology such as computers, gaming consoles, mobile devices, and online connectivity.  As I looked through these ten cognitive styles and considered the ELLs I work with, I consistently rated them heavily toward these newer cognitive preferences, especially considering how fast-paced they are observing the world around them and the demands upon them to “keep up”.

VAK learning styles:

ELLs tend to rely more heavily on kinesthetic and visual learning styles within the classroom early on in their language development.  Learning a language strictly orally with no visual or modeling supports is a daunting task indeed. Teachers working with ELLs will attest to the immense value using visual and kinesthetic techniques for both instruction and learning activities brings when attempting to make information accessible to ELLs. 

Once more language skills have developed, ELLs will be able to demonstrate and communicate a preference for one learning style over the other; it is important for teachers to remember that giving ELLs the vocabulary and ability to discuss their learning style and learning preferences helps them to be advocates for their own learning.  

Analysis of games

General Information of games:

Vocabulary.co.il

This website offers many different games for vocabulary practice.  In my exploration of the website, I chose to focus on the games identified for English language acquisition.  

http://www.vocabulary.co.il/english-language-games/

Games included activities for beginning nouns (objects), homophones, synonyms, antonyms, syllables, sight words, possessive nouns, compound words, and more.  Listed in the side bar as part of the website included games for suffixes, prefixes, root words, phonics, idioms, and other areas of language that would benefit ELLs. 

Game play included matching games (such as memory cards and line matching), multiple choice, and other types of play.  All games have some form of feedback, whether visual (check marks and red “x”s) or auditory (chime for correct answers and a crying baby when the wrong answer is chosen). 

ESL beginning noun memory game

ESL synonym game: note the clear feedback given

English (non-ELL) synonym game:
note the more challenging vocabulary

ESL Idiom & Slang game: multiple choice

English (non-ELL) idiom game-play

Suffix matching game: again, colorful interactive qualities and feedback

Balloon Juggle

This game is played with students grouped into two (or possibly more) teams.  Each player on a team takes turns answering questions while the team works together to keep the balloon aloft.  Points are awarded for correct answers (3pts), keeping the balloon aloft (3pts), or both (7pts).  Questions can be about any topic students are learning about.  Difficulty of the game can be varied by adding other physical challenges (more balloons, or navigating obstacles while answering questions) or trivia (such as continuing to answer questions until a balloon is dropped or a question is answered incorrectly).  

Comparison 1: Game components

Below is an analysis evaluating the quality of each game by my definition of a game and comparing them to each other.  

Game Component:	Vocabulary.co.il	Balloon Juggle
organized rules for sense-making of environment	strong: rules very clear, with nice explanations and directions available	strong: clear rules set forth by teacher; variations continue to focus on goals of game-play
exists outside ordinary life	medium: fantastic elements and colorful designs are attractive, but not strongly distant from life	weak: game exists within classroom environments
interaction with others as conflict or cooperation	weak: game interaction is for personal best, but not with another entity (real or in game)	strong: lots of interaction with peers for cooperation
conflict	strong: games encourage players to beat personal best scores and times	strong: conflict with self to remember information
fun/entertainment	weak: while engaging enough for academic use, students may not voluntarily access games without teacher prompting	strong: game-play is enjoyable & simple enough students could create their own versions
challenging goal to attain	strong: vocabulary involved is challenging & leveled for different student grades	strong: combination of mental/academic challenge with physical challenge
uncertainty in outcome	strong: vocabulary is challenging enough that students will need frequent plays to develop certainty of “winning”	strong: many variables make game challenging and each game-play unique in its outcome

As indicated, both games have many strong areas in their definition and workings as games.  With ELLs in mind, Balloon Juggle has the most game components ranked “strong”, making it the better-fit for ELLs. 

Comparison 2:  Learners’ styles

I felt that both of these games had strengths as well as weaknesses for ELLs.  Though I feel both are very appropriate to use with ELLs, for the purposes of the course I am to designate one game as “best-fit” and “least-fit”.  However, because I feel both are useful tools for teachers if used with students’ specific needs in mind, I will designate the Balloon Juggle as “best-fit” for elementary and emerging/beginner ELLs and Vocablary.co.il as a “good-fit” for ELLs.  Below is a description of each game and its level of appropriateness for ELLs’ learning styles.

Vocabulary.co.il: “good-fit”
Online games that focus on vocabulary commonly lack context or strong motivators for students who are new to English to keep working.  It is difficult to truly acquire new vocabulary in a second language without sufficient practice within a supportive, engaging, authentic context.  Stand-alone vocabulary games have a wonderful built-in repetitive nature, giving students the opportunity to encounter new words in practice frequently, but they lack the authentic, rich context of using them in interactions with others.  This makes them slightly less concrete than accommodating or diverging learners might prefer.

Having said this, the games on this site will be engaging for students, but some will likely take some preparatory work in the classroom prior to play.  I feel it is unlikely that some games would be voluntarily played by students, especially those where the vocabulary might be inappropriate for younger learners or ELLs with beginning language proficiencies. The immediate feedback will be helpful in guiding students’ understanding of both the game-play and vocabulary, but teachers should be aware of complex or difficult language in the games’ explanations of target vocabulary.

Accommodating learners will appreciate how easy it is to navigate and click through the games to discover how they work.  Some accommodating learners will need to be shown to watch for changing directions (such as when to match a synonym instead of an antonym).  Diverging learners will appreciate the chance to practice a skill on their own, but might be frustrated if they do not understand the game or task at hand immediately.  Teachers might want to support their learning my modeling the game in front of the whole class or pairing them with another student for a few minutes before asking them to try it on their own.

Balloon game: “best-fit”

One huge advantage of this game is the participative. This game gives kinesthetic learners a chance to move and be active and interactive with peers while participating in a learning activity.  This is especially important for young learners, but ELLs also benefit from this aspect by feeling a sense of belonging to the group.  Even if they do not understand or know all of the answers, they can still earn the team points by keeping the balloon aloft.  While the game is very concrete in nature, the questions asked during the game will be less context-embedded.  Being aware of this more decontextualized aspect for ELLs, teachers should look for opportunities to announce what topic or area of study the questions are related to (if more than one is being used for game-play) and provide connections to background information for ELLs to help them with retrieval of information. 

Due to the adaptability of the game, teachers could modify game-play further to be more meaningful and inclusive of ELLs as participants in the game.  An example of how teachers and students can create their own variations in rules for this game is by having something of a “phone-a-friend” option for ELL students.  After attempting an answer, the student could call upon a teammate for assistance; the teammate could then choose to modify or restate the ELL student’s answer.  The ELL student would then have to acknowledge agreement with this modified or restated answer by submitting a “final answer” to the judge (teacher) for points. 

Accomodating learners will love being able to actively and more fully participate as a member of the class.  They will have no problem jumping right into game-play, though they will likely not understand all of the rules at first.  Both accommodating and diverging learners would benefit from having a “buddy” during the game to watch and be a model to imitate. 

Resources:

Businessballs (2013). Kolb’s learning styles: David Kolb’s learning styles model and experiential learning theory. Retrieved from: http://www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm

Businessballs (2013). Free VAK learning styles test: vak - visual, auditory, kinesthetic - learning styles model and free self-test. Retrieved from: http://www.businessballs.com/vaklearningstylestest.htm

Prensky, M. (1998). Twitch Speed: Keeping up with young learners. Originally published in Across the Board.  Retrieved from : http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Twitch%20Speed.html

Vocabulary.co.il: Vocabulary can be fun! Retrieved July 7, 2013 from: http://www.vocabulary.co.il/english-language-games/