Angry Bird Video Game Personal Reflection - Essay Example

Personal reflection on engagement with video games Date Angry Bird video game personal reflection Introduction This paper discusses on my personal reflection of the video game I love playing most. As per my observation, everybody loves playing angry bird. In the modern era, the existence of advanced technology has seen the increase in the dependence of video gaming as a source of entertainment. Consequently, many people have turned the opportunities to engage in video gaming as educational based and sources of teaching foreign languages. Every household in the modern economy has access to a computer or a gaming device. The biggest challenge facing game-lovers comes from purchasing new games that they are not familiar with hence, they are required to learn them first before they master playing them. In such a manner, even learning a new language becomes simplified by the actions henceforth. Gamers are known to take their time to develop knowledge about all aspects of the game. In order to gain insight, gamers will play the game for a long time and with great attention. The main goal of a game developer is to engage the player for long. I have an attraction to games like angry bird and others that user the same elements. ­­the game logics stipulate that a person can play just for a little bit at a time. It also stipulates that each time a person plays or shoots, you could get a slightly different result. The basic idea in the game is that you launch these birds. The birds are characterised by angry moods. They are launched with a sling shot. The main goal is to knock over some pigs and the ladder progresses. Per se, the above is what entails the game or is what the game is developed for and maintained to achieve (Boerger & Tietgens 2013). There is also physics entailed in the game. For example, the game designer considered the vertical constant acceleration. The game is also made in such a manner that the birds maintain a certain constant horizontal velocity. According to my own personal reflection, I believe there is more to playing the game. The elements of the game are also important aspects to be considered. According to physics and the data obtained in the analysis of the game, the bird is observed to be moving at a constant speed in the direction (say X) (Boerger & Tietgens 2013). In deeper analysis, the velocity of the bird is at 2.46 AB/s. The assumption is that the video runs in real time. The above factor is important in order to maintain a certain level of challenge in the game. The physics involved in playing the game also stipulate that there is a certain projectile motion involved when launching commands to play the game (Chodos, Stroulia & King 2011). Projectile motion is the only force I believe is working on the bird in order to degenerate enough force that will create a challenging game environment. Gravitational force is also a factor to consider when the bird is in slightly less motion. The gravitational force is what creates a challenge to the player of the game. In some instances, the bird seems to go off the screen. These are instances when vertical motion is facing constant acceleration (Chodos, Stroulia & King 2011). I have understood the Angry Bird Trilogy very well. It is important people to know it and master it since it is a complicated compilation of three popular physics-based puzzle games. The games are made available for various electronic sources. The game is extremely accessible to start and safe for most of the ages. Per se, the worst it gets are some funny cartoonish piggy faces with black eyes. Even so, the puzzle becomes much challenging and perhaps too challenging for young kids. As the game proceeds the challenge engages deeper and deeper (Bell, Martin & Clarke 2004). The game elements The angry bird puzzle will appeal to many people and urge them to strategize while at same time satisfying everyone’s primal interests in smashing stuff. The controls of the game, though originally made for a Smartphone, translate surprisingly well to a gamepad. As per for the learning strategy, physics, logic, and strategy are core facets of this puzzler (De Vita & Case 2003). All players are forced to think about momentum, object properties, and how they fit within the game’s specific rule set. Per se, there is not much instructions and little in the way of hints. Even so, this is a game about experimentation and trial-and-error play. Most players, just like me, are expected to do much better. In case a person may need help, there is at least enough help online that can direct a player to a level of self mastery. One characteristic of video gaming is the fact that it will demand the attention of the learner and provide what information is needed for any junction within the game. Every game maintains its own particular varying methods of problem solving. Per se, the solving process requires an active mind that will aid in the process of completing a task successfully (De Vita & Case 2003). There are several learning elements of a video game. One of the elements is that each game exists under its own space. When talking about space, it is important to note that all games have a world in which they exist as their space. The space of the game describes the look and feel of the game itself including such factors as visual space, barriers, colours, sounds and light. Goal is the second element of a video game. It is simple because it dictates the process of winning within the game (Anderson & Krathwohl 2001). The ultimate challenge is how the learner can score the most points. The goal of the game offers solutions to how the player can develop strategies to enhance his or her winning capabilities (Anderson & Krathwohl 2001). Components form the other element of a video game. It is the third element that is facilitated by the above two elements (De Vita & Case 2003). It allows the player or designer of the game to add the characters and objects that are in existence in this world and design a strategy of how they are used to play the game (Girald, Ecalle & Magnan 2012). Mechanics are the actions brought forward by characters and components in the course of game play. It is the elements responsible for outlining all the constraints put on the characters and help create a level of difficulty for the game (Jonassen & Rohrer 1999). Conclusion The Angry Bird game is one of my most exiting games. This paper has discussed or rather is a personal reflection of a game that most interests me. As per my observation, everybody loves playing angry bird. In the modern era, the existence of advanced technology has seen the increase in the dependence of video gaming as a source of entertainment. References Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Bell, M., Martin, G., & Clarke, T. (2004). Engaging in the future of e-learning: a scenarios- based approach. Emerald Insight, 46(6/7), 296-307. doi: 10.1108/00400910410555204 Boerger, F., & Tietgens, H. (2013). TÜV NORD in 3D: Avatars at work: From Second Life to the Web 3D. In A. Hebbel-Segger, T. Reiners, & D. Schäfer (Eds.), Alternate Realities: Emerging Technologies in Education and Chodos, D., Stroulia, E., & King, S. (2011). Developing a virtual-world simulation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Software Engineering in Health Care (pp. 71–78). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1987993.1988007Economics. Springer Verlag. De Vita, G., & Case, P. (2003). Rethinking the internationalisation agenda in UK higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27, 383 – 398. Girard, C., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2012). Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, no–no. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2729.2012.00489.x Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79. doi:10.1007/BF02299477 Essay 2 Designing a game-enhanced scenario as a teacher/learner of a second language Student’s Name Course Institution Tutor Date Introduction The first essay gives an example of ‘The AngryBird’ while the second essay gamifies the Turkish class via the Dungeon Master video game. The two games are completely similar. They use the same video game gimmicks. I decided to choose the Dungeon master for gamification of the class due to the fact that students responded more comfortable with it. Consequently, it provides the best opportunity to gamify especially since it is a Turkish class. Another reason is that as much as the two games use the same game gimmick, Angry Bird is mostly played by kids hence the class is for adults. I am a teacher teaching Turkish as a second language. I have an opportunity to experiment the gamification of language class. This paper is based on video games in Turkish language classes comprising of 16 adult learners. The class is a B1 level that comprises of 140 hours divided into 5 hours per week. The reason for choosing this class is because adults are the main students. Adults are perceived to be more motivated in learning this language after they have made decisions to register in the adult learning program. My first class The focus of the class was communication methods and method implementation. When beginning any class, it is advisable for the teacher to avoid books and focus on oral work. I had designed activities that would help the students in learning. Gamifying the class After engaging with the students during the first lesson, it was important to employ a different technique for teaching. The best method that I sought to implement was gamifying the class. Gamification had the potential to change the way the students perceived learning the Turkish language. Since i was dealing with adults, I was certain that at least all of them had in one point engaged in playing video games. The best manner to incorporate gamification into a learning process is to blend the elements of gaming into the gamification process. Per se, there was a need for more powerful elements of gamification in order to create an impact on the students. Gamification involves the use of gaming elements to enhance learning. There have existed discussions of whether learning outcomes for students are enhanced by using serious games for education. Individual studies have provided indicators of a positive relationship. Meta-analysis, on the other hand, indicates mixed results (Masters et al. 2013). Gamification of the learning processes requires a careful design and adoption of the gaming elements to ensure an effective implementation (O’Donovan 2012). Gamification might be able to trigger intrinsic motivation, yet it relies on multiple internal and external factors that must be aligned. Per se, it involves identification with learning tasks, creating an environment where multiple participants can receive comparable results and having the opportunity of authentic gamification (Petraglia 1998). The main aim is always to merge the gamification elements and the authentic learning tasks in the same context so that the participants’ perception is not biased towards achieving badges but working towards overall objectives (Petraglia 1998). Another application of gamification is assessment, well-recognised in the research community but not yet explored to its full potential (Reiner et al. 2011). While some approaches use the outcome of the gamification as criteria for assessment, game elements can support assessment by influencing the learning task either dynamically or having scripted events that are triggered by certain activities (Reiners & Wood 2013). The second class During my second class, I adopted the idea of the ‘Dungeon master’; a game I thought would help in gamifying teaching in the class. A story teller was responsible for the role of the game master, responsible for guiding players through the defined narrative of flexible quests (Reiners & Wood 2013). In a classroom, the teacher will automatically assume this role. The teacher will also assume the responsibility of designing the quests of increased difficulty according to achieved learning goals. For instance, I chooses the topics in the course and modified the learning timetable by teaching the simpler courses and eventually the difficult ones (Shute 2008). I was responsible for even using multiple player concepts by incorporating group discussions to evaluate answers. Creating objects in a virtual environment allows for increased immersion that facilitates the transfer of learning skills (Shute 2008). Most importantly noted, virtual environment can contain carefully integrated and designed bots (non-player characters) that allow an instructor to manipulate the environment and scenarios to support learners experience and assessment activities (Vallance & Martin 2012). One thing I came to understand is that effective gamification is not layering goals and rewards on top of content; rather, it involves adopting a game thinking mentality in order to integrate game mechanics into learning in a planned approach. Effective games have been identified as great influencers of both psychology and technology, in ways that can be applied outside the environment of games themselves (Masters et al. 2013). Gamification in the learning process in my Turkish class is supported by several crucial factors. The first factor is classroom management. Classroom management stipulates that a clear goal in the design and processes should be implemented (Masters et al. 2013). For example, when a player is playing scrabble, the main goal is to come up with enough high-scoring words to win the game. For those players who love playing angry bird, the main objective is to complete each level successfully (Huang 2002). Nonetheless, there is always something exiting about each stage of the puzzle (Huang 2002). If the students are given a clear goal before each lesson begins or assignment, they are bound to be more productive on the results. The process can be gamified in a form of a checklist or even game board worksheet where students colour in a circle as they complete their tasks as they get near to the finish line (Lombaedi 2007). My third class During my third class, I sought to implement another element of gamification in order to improve further the gamification method of teaching the students. By this time, all the students had begun adopting the new method I had introduced for teaching them. During this class, I decided to introduce another element of gamification. The element is reward for success. I designed a mission for the students in for of a quest where I took the ‘Levelling Up’ element in gaming. Each time a student completes a task he or she moves up to the next level. It is important to consider how students can level up as they complete assignments and other small tasks (Lombaedi 2007). As students continue to learn information at their own pace, they can be rewarded and move up to the next level of learning (Lombaedi 2007). I designed several motivational levels where we created a chart together and any time a student presented the correct activities, I would record his achievement in the score sheet. I designed some badges such that i would recognise the achievements with them. Players are rewarded for levelling up and as they demonstrate their mastery for the game, they are awarded with badges (Evans et al. 2010). It is also a good element to gamify and award students with badges for their mastery of content. Badges will always allow the students to have an insight of the completed steps or levels of learning (Evans et al. 2010). Making it okay to fail in order to succeed is also a very important factor. In many of today’s games, players must fail several times in order to gain insight on how to succeed (Boerger & Tietgens 2013). For example, thinking about the angry bird and the flappy bird, a player must fail time and again in order to eventually clear the birds (Boerger & Tietgens 2013). If this concept is gamified in the learning process, the students may have a better learning atmosphere. It is not in order to wait until a project or assignment is done in order to evaluate the position of learning for the students (Boerger & Tietgens 2013). Giving extra mission I devised ways on how giving extra mission would blend with the Dungeon master project. I discovered that during this stage, students could actually choose what, when, and how to do extra work with the Turkish language syllabus. Per se, most of them were motivated by the fact that there was a reward after completing a task successfully. In the reward systems, I devised different values for different points in accordance to the difficulty of the task. Recorded results As per my observation, many of the students had been motivated to perform well. The results formed a curve upon plotting the figures in a graph. Most of my students at this level were motivated enough and fell on the upper side of the curve. From the results, I deduced that all the students liked the idea of reward for completion of task and that they appreciated challenges in the tasks they encountered. On my subsequent class I introduced scaffold progress as an element of my class gamification. The teacher is gifted to be able to tell whether the students are interested or not (Anderson & Krathwohl 2001). Game designers know that they, too, need to hook players within the first few seconds or their games will not be played (Girald, Ecalle & Magnan 2012). Game designers are on the upper hand compared to teachers in that they know that they have to start easy and build upon the mastery of the first skill before you get to the next. Teachers are advised when planning for their next lesson to consider the readiness of the students and their abilities (Girald, Ecalle & Magnan 2012). It is important to start small and at the bottom and eventually work the way up to the top. As the students are made to accomplish simple tasks, it is important to make each one get more and more challenging (Lombaedi 2007). It is important to encourage friendly competition. According to many video game developers, video games are known for leader boards, or a way for recognising which player have achieved the highest score (Wood & Reiners 2013). People maintain different opinions as it comes to competition. There are those who stipulate that a little competition among peers is harmful while others maintain that it is important (Wood & Reefke 2010). Per se, showing what level a student is on, or the badge they earned may encourage others to work a little bit harder. Using gamification does not necessarily stipulate the use of gaming, but understanding the tools that designers use to motivate and engage students (Wood & Reiners 2012). Game missions The game I devised, The Dungeon Master, comprised much of like a sporting umpire. In the game, the students occupied the position of players hence their help was required in order to complete a successful task. The Dungeon Master was undefeated hence, the students needed to put all their minds together in order to succeed in defeating the master. The mission observed the gamification elements. Some of the elements include rewind, ghost image, save points and multiple lives and time and space control (Shute 2008). The first two elements are relevant by influencing learners to reflect on their past experiences, in particular, by analysing the causes of imperfect learning outcomes. Save point prevents the repetition of understood steps (Reiner et al. 2011). Control of time and space provides an opportunity to skip over what would have been, in the real world, long lasting tasks. The rewind element provides a sense of fairness and second chance. Consequently, it allows the learners to have freedom of experimenting new approaches to established problems while knowing they can fail with impunity (Werbach & Hunter 2012). Within virtual places scenarios can be reset, with all objects, items, and relationships returned to an earlier setting to facilitate using the scenario again. The replay function allows or enables learners to gain insight while they attempt to solve problems using new methods and learn from past mistakes in a rapid interactive process. Per se, the above is facilitated by coupling rewind with feedback. For example, making potential steps or showing statistics related to the initial rewind position. Repetition can be used for several for different kinds of assessment in later stages by either self, peer, or teacher based assessment (Chodos, Stroulia & King 2011). It is eventually used to improve the learning tasks. For example, the learner can explore situations using rewind. An example of the value of rewind is learning the best way to drive around a corner in a racing game (Jonassen & Rohrer 1999). After an attempt, the system visualises the speed and acceleration over time so players can identify points for improvement; e.g., breaking before the corner. Rewind allows the player to go to precisely the right moment where they must act differently (Masters et al. 2013). Ghost functions are an on-the-fly replay option involving a pre-recorded attempt that is overlaid on the environment, allowing observers to see what occurred and what was going on at the same time. Consequently, the above provides opportunities for self-based learning that is built from the past experiences (Masters et al. 2013). Learners are able to observe their past achievements at a learning task, complete with observation of simultaneous events poorly perceived in the heat of the moment by using the ghost function. It allows the learner to observe and reflect on how they responded at their leisure while in a safe environment. The use of a combination of save points and multiple lives provides learners with the sense of empowerment. They get empowered to explore and experiment with different approaches safe in the knowledge that if they get something wrong they have options of trying again and again until they are able to come up with solutions (Reiner et al. 2011). The two also function as break in activities. Such breaks allow the participants to recuperate before re-immersion in the activity. The ability to manipulate both space and time in virtual worlds opens exciting new possibilities to educators (Masters et al. 2013). The constituent components and interactions within a process that may be too fast, small, or distant in the real world can be altered and adjusted to make it accessible to a virtual observer. Slow motion (possibly perceived as a subset of time and space control) can be required to understand some physical activities on a technical level (Vallance & Martin 2012). Ghost images allow for a range of activities and assessment activities in general. Reflective learning allows for a range of ghost images application to a scenario for a learner to reflect on what they were doing each time (Vallance & Martin 2012). Save point and multiple lives can be combined to enable learners to progress of increasingly difficult situations (Masters et al. 2013). Conclusion According to my experience in gamification of the Turkish class, video game-based learning is very effective in teaching second languages. The paper above has sought to explain and discuss the design of assessment and how to use game elements, whether in video games, through gamified VLE, or in gamified class setting, to enhance students’ motivation and engagement with learning processes and materials. Without adding any more gaming elements to the classroom, schooling already contains some elements that pose as analogous to games. Video games provide virtual environments in which opportunities for action are manifested. Gamification involves the use of gaming elements to enhance learning. There have existed discussions of whether learning outcomes for students are enhanced by using serious games for education. The recent years have seen an increase in gamified education or presentation of a course context in a game-like context. References Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman Bell, M., Martin, G., & Clarke, T. (2004). Engaging in the future of e-learning: a scenarios- based approach. Emerald Insight, 46(6/7), 296-307. doi: 10.1108/00400910410555204 Boerger, F., & Tietgens, H. (2013). TÜV NORD in 3D: Avatars at work: From Second Life to the Web 3D. In A. Hebbel-Segger, T. Reiners, & D. Schäfer (Eds.), Alternate Realities: Emerging Technologies in Education and Economics. Springer Verlag. Chodos, D., Stroulia, E., & King, S. (2011). Developing a virtual-world simulation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Software Engineering in Health Care (pp. 71–78). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1987993.1988007 De Vita, G., & Case, P. (2003). Rethinking the internationalisation agenda in UK higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27, 383 – 398. Evans, E., Christopherson, L., Sturm, B., King, E., & Haefele, C. (2010). Alternate reality games: a realistic approach to gaming on campus? In Proceedings of the 38th annual ACM SIGUCCS fall conference. 157- 164. doi: 10.1145/1878335.1878376 Girard, C., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2012). Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, no–no. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2729.2012.00489.x Huang, H.-M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27–37. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00236 Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79. doi:10.1007/BF02299477 Lombardi, M. (2007). Authentic Learning for the 21st Century: An Overview. (D. G. Oblinger, Ed.) Educause Learning Initiative, 1–12. Masters, Y., Gregory, S., Dalgarno, B., Campbell, M., Reiners, T., Dreher, H., … Knox, V. (2013). VirtualPREX: Providing virtual professional experience for pre-service teachers. In S. Gregory, M. J. W. Lee, B. Dalgarno , & B. Tynan (Eds.), Virtual Worlds in Online and Distance Education: Discipline-based practice (Vol. 2). O’Donovan, S. (2012). Gamification of the Games Course. Retrieved from http://pubs.cs.uct.ac.za/archive/00000771/01/Gamification_of_the_Games_Course.pdf Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Routledge. Reiners, T., Gregory, S., & Dreher, H. (2011). Educational assessment in virtual world environments. In J. D. Yorke (Ed.), ATN Assessment Conference 2011: Meeting the Challenges (pp. 132–140). Perth, Western Australia: Curtin University. http://otl.curtin.edu.au/atna2011/files/ATNA_2011_Proceedings.pdf Reiners, T., & Wood, L. C. (2013). Immersive virtual environments to facilitate authentic education in Logistics and supply chain management. In Y. Kats (Ed.), Learning management systems and instructional design: Metrics, standards, and applications (pp. 323–343). Hershey, PA: IGI. Ricketts, C., & Wilks, S. J. (2002). Improving student performance through computer-based assessment: Insights from recent research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 475–479. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189. Vallance, M., & Martin, S. M. (2012). Assessment and learning in the virtual world: Tasks, taxonomies and teaching for real. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 5(2). Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the Win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital. Wiecha, J., Heyden, R., Sternthal, E., & Merialdi, M. (2010). Learning in a virtual world: Experience with using Second Life for medical education. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12(1). Wood, L. C., & Reefke, H. (2010). Working with a diverse class: Reflections on the role of team teaching, teaching tools and technological support. In H. Huai, P. Kommers, & P. Isaías (Eds.), IADIS International Conference on International Higher Education (IHE 2010) (pp. 72–79). Wood, L. C., & Reiners, T. (2012). Gamification in logistics and supply chain education: Extending active learning. In P. Kommers, T. Issa, & P. Isaías (Eds.), IADIS International Conference on Internet Technologies & Society 2012 (pp. 101–108). Perth, Australia: IADIS. Wood, L. C., & Reiners, T. (2013). Game-based elements to upgrade bots to non-player characters in support of educators. In A. Hebbel-Seeger, T. Reiners, & D. Schäfer (Eds.), Synthetic worlds: Emerging technologies in education and economics (pp. 257-277). Berlin: Springer. Read More