We are giving mid-term exams here at Mercyhurst this week. I don't think much of traditional methods for testing student knowledge and was, therefore, intrigued by a quote I recently found in a much longer article on assessment:
"Good tests make the student feel smart or skilled, if not both. They make the student feel like they're applying what they've learned. The puzzle inherent in a test should flow naturally from the existing, well-established content of the course. While students should feel like they can bring their existing skills to the task at hand, they should also feel like a suitable challenge has been placed in front of them."
I like that. Imagine a test so well-designed that the student would actually appreciate the challenge the test presented! The implied lesson here is that tests ought to be about the learning and not about the grade, about mastering a body of knowledge and not about punching a ticket.
Many of you probably agree with me that such a test would be one worth taking. You probably also think that such tests are impossible to design. I have to beg to differ. Such "tests" are routinely developed by a very unique group of people -- game designers.
See, I lied before. The quote above is not from an educator, it is from Game Developer Magazine. The article it was taken from is called "Make Better Bosses" by Damion Schubert (For those of you unfamiliar with the concept of a "boss" in games, I would refer you to the Wikipedia entry on bosses). The original version of Schubert's article read like this:
Many of you probably agree with me that such a test would be one worth taking. You probably also think that such tests are impossible to design. I have to beg to differ. Such "tests" are routinely developed by a very unique group of people -- game designers.
See, I lied before. The quote above is not from an educator, it is from Game Developer Magazine. The article it was taken from is called "Make Better Bosses" by Damion Schubert (For those of you unfamiliar with the concept of a "boss" in games, I would refer you to the Wikipedia entry on bosses). The original version of Schubert's article read like this:
"Good boss fights make the player feel smart or skilled, if not both. They make the player feel like they're applying what they've learned. The puzzle inherent in a boss fight should flow naturally from the existing, well-established mechanics of the game. While players should feel like they can bring their existing skills to the task at hand, they should also feel like a suitable challenge has been placed in front of them."
All I did was replace "boss" with "test" and "player" with "student". What really struck me was how obvious the comparison was when I first read it. Of course, it might just be me (I have spent a good bit of time thinking about games and education over the last year) but I am hardly the first person to make the connection between tests of knowledge in a classroom and the challenges posed by most games (See the short interview with Prof. Gee below). It seems like something worth thinking about...
Certainly worth thinking about; better worth doing, as you've demonstrated.
ReplyDeleteI've been experimenting with games in one of the classes I teach, using an already developed board game called "Crack the Case" to teach abductive reasoning and hypothesis generation/testing. I also use a (ridiculous and intentionally silly) Jeopardy-like game show format I made up to test knowledge of different kinds of logical fallacy. It's guaranteed fun, but I am more skeptical about whether we get the level of transfer we want as teachers. I'm not convinced we do, but want to learn more about the field.
Great segment on game learning in a TTBOOK podcast here:
http://wpr.org/book/090614b.cfm
I love this one from Plato: "You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation."
Great series on the use of games, BTW.
@Todd, the best mechanism I've found for abductive teaching is the game called Zendo. If your students can grok the game, then they can perform abductive reasoning.
ReplyDeleteI haven't thought about exams as bosses before and normally when writing them I'm more interested in student's writing and critical thinking abilities ... but the spin this article puts on things is absolutely fascinating. I wonder if it can be integrated into a marks as XP scheme?
As a fairly recent college graduate, I could not agree more with this post's insight into what makes a good test. My grades were particularly important to me, but there was hardly a greater feeling (within the context of an academic environment) than taking on and "defeating" the boss at the end of the level each November, February, and May. There is something refreshing and very satisfying knowing your months of learning and study culminated into a challenging success, especially when a student finds himself particularly passionate about the material.
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing my particular college experience with those of my peers (who attended other institutions), I find that Mercyhurst provided me with a unique one, similar to that described in the quote in this post. This may be a consequence of my department and course selections; however, I found myself quite often looking forward to the "end of the level boss" within my chosen majors whether it was a term paper, a briefing, or a cululative exam. So my props and thanks to the Intellignece and Political Science departments at Mercyhurst College!
One last comment. I am not an educator by profession, but I have considerable recent experience as a student. I have always found that games within the classroom can be effective but can also be at times as frustrating as a three hour monotone lecture. I have found that the best "game-based" teaching initiatives are those that are breathing and can evolve, rather than thiose taht are purely defined by what is either correct or incorrect. Where the inherent value never changes, but the approach and process is molded by the players (or students). Where the player has to apply his own personal skills and understanding to an assigned role and then critically interacts with those around him to achieve a common goal and ultimately increase everyone's understanding of the material. And I am not sure if this is technically on par with the theroy behind educational practices, but in my opinion, I find that in class simulations are the perfect fit for what I briefly described above. While in college, I partook in a number of such simulations as part of both the intelligence and political science programs, whether it was in Geopolitics, Writing for Intelligence, or American Foreign Policy. Some required very explicit role-playing, while other's were more subtle. Regardless, i find that inclass simulations are a very effective "game-based" educational strategy! And also as a fairly ardent video-game enthusiast, I could not deny the similarities between this approach and some of the best RPGs.
As a fairly recent college graduate, I could not agree more with this post's insight into what makes a good test. My grades were particularly important to me, but there was hardly a greater feeling (within the context of an academic environment) than taking on and "defeating" the boss at the end of the level each November, February, and May. There is something refreshing and very satisfying knowing your months of learning and study culminated into a challenging success, especially when a student finds himself particularly passionate about the material.
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing my particular college experience with those of my peers (who attended other institutions), I find that Mercyhurst provided me with a unique one, similar to that described in the quote in this post. This may be a consequence of my department and course selections; however, I found myself quite often looking forward to the "end of the level boss" within my chosen majors whether it was a term paper, a briefing, or a cululative exam. So my props and thanks to the Intellignece and Political Science departments at Mercyhurst College!
One last comment. I am not an educator by profession, but I have considerable recent experience as a student. I have always found that games within the classroom can be effective but can also be at times as frustrating as a three hour monotone lecture. I have found that the best "game-based" teaching initiatives are those that are breathing and can evolve, rather than thiose taht are purely defined by what is either correct or incorrect. Where the inherent value never changes, but the approach and process is molded by the players (or students). Where the player has to apply his own personal skills and understanding to an assigned role and then critically interacts with those around him to achieve a common goal and ultimately increase everyone's understanding of the material. And I am not sure if this is technically on par with the theroy behind educational practices, but in my opinion, I find that in class simulations are the perfect fit for what I briefly described above. While in college, I partook in a number of such simulations as part of both the intelligence and political science programs, whether it was in Geopolitics, Writing for Intelligence, or American Foreign Policy. Some required very explicit role-playing, while other's were more subtle. Regardless, i find that inclass simulations are a very effective "game-based" educational strategy! And also as a fairly ardent video-game enthusiast, I could not deny the similarities between this approach and some of the best RPGs.