Learner
Styles and Puzzle, Quiz, and Sports Games
Learner’s
Style
It is a difficult task to describe the learning
style of the students in one of my Spanish classes. They have such widely different backgrounds,
beliefs, talents, and, of course, learning styles. For instance, when given a special
assignment, project, or game to be played, some get impatient with a too lengthy
explanation. They just want to get at it
and try to figure it out as they go.
Others listen attentively and want everything spelled out in detail
before they start. Some prefer role
playing and working with their fellow students; others prefer to work
alone. Therefore, for the purposes of
this assignment, I will identify and describe my own learning style.
1.
Kolb
I have always been one to watch and listen carefully
when something is being done or described.
After I have learned all I can that way, I then do it myself, trying to
find patterns and a logic behind whatever it is I am doing in order to do it
better or learn it faster. According to Kolb,
I believe this closely approximates an Assimilating
Learning Style. Such learners prefer a concise, logical
approach. They tend toward the watching end of the doing/watching
processing continuum and the thinking
end of the feeling/thinking perception continuum. In other words they engage in abstract
conceptualization and reflective observation.
2.
Prensky
On the 10 pairings of cognitive style, I fall towards
the traditional end of most. I didn’t
grow up with computers and am therefore not of the game generation. I prefer conventional
speed. I like to take my time and do
things carefully. For the most part, I
prefer linear processing, doing one
thing at a time. However, I try to take
advantage of today’s technology and, like most, do some multi-tasking. I generally engage in linear thinking, though can get lost in the hyperlinking
world. I have no real preference for graphics v. text. I prefer working alone (standalone), am more passive
than active, and see work more traditionally (as work) than with a game interface.
I am somewhere between needing an immediate
payoff and appreciating delayed
gratification, am firmly rooted in reality
(avidly following politics and the news of the day), and increasingly
embrace technology, seeing it as a friend.
3.
VAK
Having taken the Self-Assessment Questionnaire, the
results determined that I have a visual
learning style. Of the three models
used, this seems to me overly simplistic.
However, it does capture my belief that I can best perform a new task
after watching someone else first do it or by reading instructions. I also teach in this manner—showing the
students what I mean and using lots of visuals.
Analysis
of Games: Bloxorz v Who Wants To Win $1,000,000?
1.
General
Information
The object of Bloxorz
is to get a rectangular block to fall into a square hole, thus ending one stage
and allowing the player to move on to the next.
There are 33 stages to complete, each of succeeding difficulty. The player moves the block around using the
arrow keys of the keyboard. The block
can be rolled on its sides or flipped over end to end. There are switches, which open and close
bridges that connect isolated surfaces.
Some of these can be activated when touched with any part of the block;
others require the block to be standing upright upon them. There are also orange tiles that are more
fragile, upon which a block may not stand upright. If the block falls off the edge, the game
restarts at the same level.
Who
Wants To Win $1,000,000? is nearly identical to a past TV
game show by the name of Who Wants to Be
a Millionaire? The object of the
game is for the player to win as much “money” as possible by answering multiple
answer science (and some math) questions correctly. To win $1,000,000 the player must answer all
16 questions correctly. The questions
increase in money value and in difficulty as the game progresses. At any time a player may quit and keep
whatever money he or she has accumulated.
If a wrong answer is given, the player loses everything and the game
ends. There are certain safety levels (6th
question--$1000 and 11th question--$32,000), which, when reached,
guarantee the player that amount of money.
There are also three “life lines” that the player can use at any time
during the game when he or she is unsure of the correct answer. He may “poll the lab” (given the percentage
of votes that each answer got), use a “50/50” (two wrong answers are randomly
eliminated), and “ask an expert” (though the correctness of the answer is not
guaranteed).
2.
Comparison
1: Game components
Again, my five components are the following: Played for enjoyment, freely chosen,
obstacles to be overcome (closely associated with a “goal”), a set of rules, and
a closed system.
Bloxorz: I believe that four of the five components
are very strong. One freely chooses to play,
it is very enjoyable, there is a clear goal (which gets more and more
challenging to attain as the level increases), and it makes up a closed
system. There are not a lot of rules,
making this component the weakest of the five.
That is not to say that this is a criticism of the game. It is actually a strong point in that it provides
all the challenge one could hope for, yet with a very simple set of
instructions. It is merely the weakest
match with the components that I have named in defining a game.
Who
Wants To Win a $1,000,000?:
I believe that this game provides a strong match with the components of
being freely chosen and of being a closed system. The other three components, while clearly
present, are not as strong. The game is
basically just a test of one’s previously learned knowledge. Therefore there is no real room for growth or
improvement at playing the game. This,
to me, takes away some of the enjoyment.
There are basically no rules other than to try to answer the questions
correctly. There is a clear goal—winning
as much “money” as possible—but the only obstacle is the player’s own lack of
knowledge. Since this is predetermined,
the player can’t improve in the course of the game.
3.
Comparison
2: Learner’s style
I always have a problem with trying to connect a
game’s effectiveness with the strength of its fitting to my definition of a
game. The components that I have named
were merely meant to define what a game is and distinguish it from other
activities. They were not meant to
determine whether a game is “good” or “bad”, depending on how well it matches
up with my definition. Having said that,
not only is Bloxorz a better fit with
my definition, it is also a better (though not perfect) fit with my learning
style. Although this is not a game in
which one is given demonstrations of how to play or strategies on how to win
(which I normally would like to have), it is simple in concept and one can
simply dive in and learn by doing. As I
said at the outset, I like to find patterns and the logic behind an activity in
order to learn something faster and do it better. This game provides that opportunity. As I played, I became better and better at
maneuvering the block around the surface and getting it in the position that I
wanted. I discovered what I needed to
look for, and became better at visualizing the future resulting position of an
initial move of the block. This game
allowed for Kolb’s abstract
conceptualization in the form of thinking, analyzing, and planning, which
is part of the assimilating learning
style. The reflective observation component of the assimilating learning style was also present to a degree. Though I didn’t watch another person’s play
and then reflect, I was able to observe the outcome of my own moves, reflect,
and then try something different.
Who
Wants To Win a $1,000,000? was not a good fit with my
learning style in that I felt that there was really not much learning to be
had. There is nothing that happens in
the course of the game that one may then apply and therefore improve one’s
later performance. There are sundry
facts that can be learned when one answers incorrectly or when a life line is
successfully used, but success in the game depends upon one’s previously learned
knowledge and this doesn’t really change from game to game (perhaps from year
to year). There is no analyzing,
reflecting, planning, or thinking (apart from trying to remember).
