First, participants had an introductory discussion about criteria to evaluate educational games used in an Information Literacy class and suggested rubric. They then played several games:
- The group played the computer citation game TicTacToe, an interactive computer game designed for undergraduate and graduate students. It can be played solo or in groups. Participants then evaluated the game using the rubric.
- The second game the group played was the game Citation Challenge, a collaborative, critical-thinking game created at last year’s LILAC event From Stale to Stellar. This game was designed for groups up to 30 students divided into groups of 3-4, and is meant for undergraduate and graduate students. This game was also evaluated and discussed using the rubric.
- The third game participants played was the interactive computer game Goblin Threat, a plagiarism game, followed by its evaluation and discussion.
The last game the group played was the game Chasing Citations, from the book Let the Games Begin! (ALA Store/Worldcat/CUNY Catalog). This game was a collaborative, kinesthetic, critical-thinking game meant for undergraduate students.
At the end of the workshop participants worded criteria for the Evaluation Rubric, recreated here.
Does not Meet Expectations or Low
Meets Expectations or Medium
Exceeds Expectations or High
|Learning Objectives||Does not relate more than superficially to the objectives or goals.||Correlates with multiple learning objectives, requiring only basic understanding of required skills.||Requires deep understanding of multiple learning objectives and provides opportunities to demonstrate higher level thinking.|
|Narrative Context||Storyline is basic and does not "thread through" all of the game play.||The context or storyline is apparent and continues throughout the game but there are limited opportunities to increase understanding of them.||Allows the player to deepen knowledge about various aspects of the game and naturally develops a deeper understanding of the context.|
|Organization and User Friendliness||The game does not have well-organized problems. Hard to use, takes efforts to understand.||Has multiple opportunities to problem solve. User can understand after some trials.||Problem solving opportunities are recursive and transformative. The player is able to finish the game with an added skill set or transformed world-view. Easy to pick up and use.|
|Engagement, Motivation, Fun||Game does not offer sufficient engagement for players.||Game offers sufficient engagement for the players.||The game is so engaging it is difficult to stop playing.|
|Interactivity and Collaboration||There is little or no interaction between players or between players and the game.||Interaction with other players and with the game is occasionally encouraged, but may not play a significant role in game play.||Interaction with others and/or with the game occurs regularly during game play. Collaboration is encouraged and allows the player to progress in the game while receiving support from other players and the game.|
|Skill building||Little to no skill building.||Different levels of the game build upon prior learned skills. Initial game play may be difficult but rewards are attainable.||Builds skills throughout.|
|Assessment and Feedback||Little to no assessment tools offered. Feedback is not specific and does not happen in a timely manner.||Some assessment tools offered. Feedback doesn't always help the player learn from his/her mistakes.||Assessment is immediate. Feedback is immediate and specific, offering support for the player.|