The amount of subjects used was 12 subjects in total. All of the children were recruited from an occupational therapy office. The inclusion criteria consisted of children that were previously diagnosed with sensory processing disorder and also children diagnosed with autism in some cases the children might have had both.The data was collected by the improvements the children have made. The fist time the kids were exposed to the different textures they might have not like it or maybe even avoided it after several trials of the game the children some of them didn’t have any issue with the textures. Conditions created to be compared were children with sensory processing disorder (SPD) and children with autism (ASD) and SPD. Subjects in each group were asked to identify  the texture of the animal in the card and the name of the animal. The subjects were asked to play with their class mates and tell each other the animal and texture and how they felt about it, if they liked the texture or not. The outcome of the experiment turned out to be positive. The children that only had sensory processing disorder improved their sensory skills. Exposure to the textures played a huge part for the children improvements.

We are approaching week 10 and everything seems to be falling into place and at this point we are almost done. I feel the feedback I am getting is good feed back. Out of the 20 people playing this game about 12 of them actually feel the challenge of actually remembering things. Which is good for me because that’s the whole purpose of my study and game production.

This week I had 3 young adults play the game I created. They were recruited based on their ages. The players must have been college age and currently enrolled in class. The conditions did not change based on their age. The rules of the game remained the same. In order to move their game piece around the board they had to correctly answer questions and spin a spinner. The players this week were ages 20-22. The materials I used to collect my data were a pen and a notebook. I watched each player play the game and wrote down each player’s attitude at different points in the game. The was presented in the same way it has been in previous tries. The rules were explained to each player to make sure they all understood the game. The players were unaware of the questions until it was their turn to answer a question. Responds were measured based on attitudes when winning, losing or waiting for another player to take their turn. I also measured their knowledge based on the questions at hand. I noted how many questions each player got correct or wrong. I also decided to change things up this week and only study the experimental group. I wanted to focus all my time on the experimental group and focus on the game I created to see if I can make changes to better my game. I was able to compare this week to previous weeks and see results changed or remained the same. The outcome remained the same as previous tries. The players were eager to play and showed great sportsmanship. Previous players told me that the technique of this game has really helped them and they started using it for their current classes. They also told me that since they started studying using this technique their grades have improved. I am eager to see how it goes further down the line.

The name of the game is Speed Round and this game teaches older teens to concentrate efficiently on associating colors with the correct word. The learning experience the game creates for the player is to think as quick on your feet as well as paying attention to what is being held in front of you. The rules of the game are simple, when the player is presented with a word for example horse, they would immediately think of the color brown since that is a common color for a horse. The tricky part about this game is that the word is colored in with a different color not associated with the animal. The word horse would be spelled in a green colored font and the player must say what the color of the font is rather than what they think the color of a horse is. They only have 5 seconds to write their answer. These rules may conflict with the learning objectives because people are too quick to go onto the next word without realizing they have the wrong answer. The conflict between the players is presented when the other players surrounding you may or may not have more correct answers than you. When this happens, players can feel insecure and stop playing or typing faster without trying. This is a bad technique because players will get words wrong which is holding them back in hopes of them winning. The conflict is maintained and resolved when you focus on your words and not the other players in the game. This game is functional, not fully because there are mishaps that did happen when players were interacting with the game.

Memory Gallery

The game is trying to teach players attention span. The game would be testing the players attention.The dominant form of interaction the player has with the game is remembering pictures and objects to advance to the next round to win prizes. Players will also be blindfolded to listen to the sounds and remember them. The cognitive processes is most affected by the game design, The game design affects the system by mental thinking to a solution. The numbers of players that are engaged in the game are 24. 12 players are going to see the pictures and remember it and the other 12 players are going to get blindfolded and remember the sounds they hear. The players are competitive with each other. The primary objective of the game Is to look at a series of pictures and objects, and then test to see what they remembered from the pictures or objects. The second primary object is to get blindfolded and listen to sounds either of an animal or other sounds and remember it.

My game is called Attention Span of a Snail or Speedboat?. During this week I started to rebuild my experiment and realized there is a chance my results may end up not changing at all throughout this experiment. In total 16 subjects were used. There are four main subjects. Two subjects were being tested on how well their attention was being sustained after playing games. The other two subjects, who had no involvement in games, their attention span were also being tested. 6 subjects were asking the 4 main subjects questions, while the other 6 people were audience members. The primary objective of this is to see whether those who have short attention spans can maintain the same focus and concentration level, compared to those who have long attention spans.

Picking the correct video for both the control group and experimental group would be a challenge.  If you pick a movie that both groups know then it’s obvious they would get every question correct that’s being asked to them. This can lead to defective results. The subjects  must master a skill known as memorizing information so they can answer the questions asked to them correctly. This game exist in an economy. For example, in the work place you need to be very attentive to what you are doing. For example, if you are a journalist, you have to make sure the work you are publishing is facts, because if it’s not, you can be sued.

All players mainly have to do is answer the questions being directed to them afterwards. The aftermath would be interesting if in the end those with long attention spans and short attention spans ended up getting the same amount of questions correct.  It’s a fair game, because you get to see how focused or how easily distracted both parties can be once they are put to the true test of answering questions. Participants in one group were presented films to watch and afterwards required to ask questions, while participants in group two just watched films and weren’t required to answer questions. For the control group, those with long attention spans were asked to watch the same videos shown to those with short attention spans, except they were asked to refrain from answering questions, unless those with short attention spans were unable to. This is fair, because everyone has an even chance to answer the questions.  This is one of the easiest game ever to play in my opinion.

The game I created, “Smarty Pants: The Trivia Game For Everyone!” was originally created to help children learn in a fun way but after testing the game on children I decided to test the game on young adults. The reason I decided to test the game on college age students was to test the results.  I wanted to see f the game had the same results as it had with the young school aged children. The purpose of the game is too ask questions based on subjects the players on learning in school and see if it benefitted them in any way. The game’s learning experience is too show its players that you can learn and have fun doing it. The game does not change based on the players age, the rules stay the same. The only thing that changes is the questions that must be asked. The players this time were all college age and currently enrolled in class. They were instructed to play by the rules and encourage sportsmanship behavior. The primary objective of the game still remains as answering questions and make your way around the board. The first player to get around the board is the winner. No items are accused during the game; the point is to make it around the board by spinning a spinner and answering all questions correctly. There is no money or other values to gain in this game. The game really encourages learning and good behavior. After comparing my notes from the first time the game was played to now they seem to remain the same. Both age groups were engager to player and for the most part always showed good sportsmanship. The game seems to be doing the job it was intended for. so far I am extremely happy with my results and my hope is for the game to continue working and benefitting its players.