Game Reviews

The following are links to in-depth reviews of educational games. These are not your typical reviews. They are in-depth and look at the game's design as well as its educational aspects. These are not efficacy or validity studies and these are also not studies that interview, question, or observe people using these games. My unique background and extensive experience in both technology and education give me a distinctive perspective. These reviews examine and analyze the games themselves as independent educational objects using several different approaches.

When I was working on my PhD (2003-2008), I found it very hard to find any decent reviews of educational games. There are plenty of reasons for this, including:

  1. Teachers aren't, for the most part, gamers and so really have no idea what makes a good game.
  2. The culture of Education does not foster critical reviews, only accolades. As a result, even bad games often get good reviews.
  3. Most educational game reviews are focused on the technicalities of using the game (how easy is it to install, and the like) and really don't say much about the game or the gameplay.
  4. Reviews rarely mention what is possible (perhaps because the reviewers aren't trained in tech and so don't actually know what's possible).

I am not a hard-core gamer, but I DO play digital games; I DO know technology; I DO know about design (having designed and built many different things from clothing, jewelry, and buildings to programs, websites and instruction); I DO know about teaching; and I ALSO know Education.

I'm also not afraid to say what I think.

So, I will add reviews as I find time (unless someone wants to pay me for this, in which case I might be convinced to do more). The focus is on things that claim to be educational, and this includes games AND simulations, because ALL GAMES ARE SIMULATIONS.

If you have any favorites you'd like me to review, let me know, and I'll add them to the list.

Format of the Review

Template V3.0

There are two parts that are not scored (yet). It doesn't make much sense to score these as there really can't be a good or bad answer here - it depends totally on context. They do, however, contribute to the whole picture and so they add a dimension that can be useful.

They are:

  1. Instructional Strategy - What instructional strategies does it use?
  2. Theoretical Underpinnings - What theories, models, or principles were used in the design of this game?

The review has 4 main parts, each of which contributes to a total score.

Approximately half of the total score has to do with the game and game elements. This is, after all a GAME we are reviewing, and if it doesn't make it as a game, it shouldn't matter how well it does in the other categories. The other half has to do with the educational potential. Remember that this template does not include efficacy tests or any other user validation. As such, this is ONE step in what should be a battery of assessments performed to try and determine the value of this game in an educational context. The current version is biased towards the use of the game in a formal educational context.

Each section includes several sub-parts, and each sub-part is to be scored on a 5-point scale from excellent [5] to non-existent [0]. The points are simply summed to create the over-all score.

  1. Game Overview: (30%) How is it as a game?
    1. Gameplay What can you do in the game? Are the controls logical and easy to use? Does each 'level' fit the overall style of the game?
    2. Art & Audio - How does it measure up esthetically? This includes visual and auditory components.
  2. Teacher Support: (20%)
    1. Guides: How to use it.
    2. Plug'N'Play: How much work is involved in fitting this game into a lesson? This also includes operation: Is installation & basic functionality explained?
    3. Resources: Supplementary Materials
  3. Educational Content (25%)
    1. Accuracy: Is it correct?
    2. Objectives: Does it appear to fulfill the stated objectives?
    3. Inclusion of Learning Objectives: Are they obvious (either in the game or in the support materials)?
    4. Integration: Are the objectives integrated into the game? In other words, is it necessary to master at least some of the stated learning objectives in order to get through the game?1)
    5. Assessment: Is the scoring / assessment in the game connected to the learning objectives (or is it easy to make them be)?
  4. Magic Bullet Rating (25%)
    1. Overall Balance: Is the relationship between the what the player can learn and must learn, both inside and outside of the game appropriate for this game given its intended use?
    2. Can vs. Must: Is it possible to get through the game without learning anything (i.e. without meeting any of the educational objectives)?
    3. Operational vs Educational: Is the required operational learning appropriate for the game's intended purpose?
    4. Educational vs Discretionary: Is there an appropriate balance of learning and fun?
    5. Containment: Is the game (including support materials) sufficiently self-contained to justify its use in the given context?

Games

Mathblaster! age 8-10

  • Math Blaster! (1986) [PC] Published by Davidson & Associates, Inc. Game Site
  • completed using an early version of the review template

Osy Osmosis age all?

  • Osy Osmosis (2012) [PC/Mobile] Published by IS3D Game Site
  • completed 2012 - template V2

Queued

Gambling Never Pays (incomplete)

Digital Frog (incomplete)

Chicktionary (incomplete)

Privacy Playground age 8-10 (incomplete)

Additional Resources

1) This is what I call Becker's Lazy Test. When I am examining a game, I see how far I can get without reading or learning anything. I simply follow the known mechanics (if obvious) or click randomly. If I can get to the end this way, it does NOT pass as an educational game.
  • pf/game-reviews/game-reviews.txt
  • Last modified: 2013/05/30 20:56
  • by becker