This week the conditions I set for the game were a bit different. This week I decided to have an adult which is myself to play with the children to see if this would play a difference on how the child with the speech delay would learn more efficiently. I played with the children the first 3 games to see if the child with the speech delay would learn more from the adult. Then after i had the children play 3 games alone. I noticed when i played with them the child with the speech delay had an issue that i was playing she kept saying no mama, don’t play and was upset every time i took a turn. She did not want me to steal her turn and got upset when i did so, she kept telling me to give the card to the other child. She also got more word wrong when playing with the adult, and seemed less interested in the game. When she played just with the other child she seemed more happy and was able to sit through the game and pronounce more words. In conclusion, playing with an adult slowed the child down, she pronounced more words while playing with just the child without speech delay.

Mean score while playing with just the child

number of correct words-6.33

number incorrect-7.66

Mean score while playing with the adult

number of correct words-4.66

number of incorrect words- 9.33

METHODS:

Nine participants were included in this study. These individuals were recruited through ads on Facebook and snapchat. Individuals between the ages of 20 to 45 were included in this study. Individuals who were included in the previous study and individuals with diagnosed disease or illness that may impair cognitive abilities were excluded from this study. The participants in this study included 5women and 4 men with a minimum of a high school education. Individuals were randomly assigned to one of the three groups by randomly drawing their names out of a hat. In group one individuals were given the easy PINGO cards to play. In group two individuals were given the medium PINGO cards to play. In group three individuals were given the hard PINGO card to play. The games were presented in three separate room and hosted by the researcher. Individuals in this study were asked to complete the paper folding test after the trial. The results for the spatial test were computerized and analyzed. Individuals in all groups were escorted into separate rooms to complete their assigned game. In each room individuals where given verbal instructions on how to play PINGO.  Each game was completed three times with 15 minutes Intervals after each completed game. Once the game was finish individuals were escorted into a different room to complete the paper folding test.

RESULTS:

The results collected from the paper folding test after the game was computerized and analyzed for each group. The results showed that individuals in the hard playing card group were more accurate in their identification of the rotated card than the easy and medium playing card group. Individuals in the hard playing card group on average accurately identified the folded paper in 16 out of 20 trials (SD= .54). Individuals in the medium playing card group on average accurately identified the folded paper in 14 out of 20 trials (SD= 1.00) Individuals in the easy playing card group on average accurately identified the folded paper in 12 out of 20 trials (SD= 2.00). Table 1 shows the results for the average scores for the paper folding test in each of the three PINGO groups. The results showed that individuals in the hard playing card group were significantly more accurate than in the easy plaguing card group (p= .003). The results showed that individuals in the hard playing card were not significantly more accurate than in the medium playing card group (p= 0.124). The results showed that individuals in the medium playing card were not significantly more accurate than in the easy playing card group (p= 0.196).

Table 1:

Individuals in the easy group.

sensory project graph sensory-project-graph

Textured Card Game.The data was collected by the improvements the children have made each week for a total of 6 weeks. The fist time the kids were exposed to different types of textures they weren’t to pleased and some even avoided it but after several trials of the game the children (some) didn’t have any issue when being exposed to the textures.The conditions being compared in this experiment were children with sensory processing disorder (SPD) and children with autism (ASD) and SPD. The subjects in each group were asked to determine the texture of the animal in the card and then name the animal thats on the card. The subjects were asked to play with their group friends and tell each other the animal and texture and how they felt about it, if they liked the texture or not.

P.S was having an issue with naming the axis on the graphs didn’t find how to. The X axis thats where the total numbers of cards the children said they liked by the end of the week. on the Y axis is each week from week 1 which was when it started to week 6 the ending. As shown in the graph there has been improvements in some groups but not very drastic but improvements have been made of how many textured cards they are able to tolerate. The groups with the highest means were the ones that were playing the card game.

-Mean

Group 1-    1.16

Group 2-    2.83

Group 3-    1.57

Group 4-     2.57

Game Title:

Outcomes

Learning Elements:

The learning elements of the game are still the same. The objective of the game is to inform the player on the harms of drinking. The game attempts to teach the player about the different of outcomes involved with drinking. The dominant form of interaction the player has with the game is making decisions based on a scenario given to the player. This supports the learning objective. The player applies what they learn throughout the game to make their decision. The cognitive process is most affected by the game design. The game design attempts to affect the cognitive process by having the player apply what they learn throughout the to making their decisions.

Formal Elements:

The formal elements have been slightly tweaked. There are one to four players engaged in the game. The players do not interact with each other in the game only the game. The game is cooperative not competitive. The primary game objective is to have the players make the right decision in the game pertaining to drinking by understanding the harms of alcohol consumption. The game objective reinforces the learning objective by informing the players on the harms of drinking while playing the game. The rules of the game are to make it through the game either as a fully recovered alcoholic or sober in general, depending on where the player starts in the game. If the player ends the game drunk, they loose. The player wins/looses based on their decisions made throughout the game. Instead of two decks of cards, the player is given one deck of cards, a pair of dice, and a board to play on. The player is still supposed to draw a card either from the  deck which includes scenarios and also tells the player what to do. The player rolls the dice to determine how many steps forward/backwards to move. The board includes a starting point and ending point along with places in the game. Levels of Achievements are accured during the game. There are no resources being spent or exchanged in this game. There is no conflict between players in the game. A star is given to the player after a level of achievement is accured. Conflict between game elements are all introduced, maintained, and resolved based on the decisions the player makes. The game has no rules which gives the players no boundaries. This limitation is fun because it gives the player as much control over their decisions as possible, making the game as realistic as possible. It also contributes to the learning and game objectives because the learning objective is supposed to influence the decisions the player makes which reinforces the game objective. The game ends when the player makes it to the end of the board either sober or drunk

Dramatic Elements:

The main character is the player of the game. If there is more than one player in the game, each player is a main character. The motivation of the character/player is to make it out of the game sober. The challenges presented to the player is whether or not they should drink or not. For example, the card may say “Stay for one more drink”, the player has to decide whether or not they will stay. This is where the player must learn how to use self control and determine whether they’ve had too much to drink or if it is a good idea for them to take another drink. The fictional world takes place in a real life setting. The general premise of the story is a college student who is either alcohol dependent or on their way to being alcohol dependent (relying on alcohol as a stress reliever), who is faced with the challenges of determining whether or not this is the life they want for themselves. The story uses an emergent narrative. The decisions made by the player unfolds the player’s story. The playfulness in the game comes from the challenges the player is faced with. The most prevalent type of play in this game is meaningful play-integrated. The Achievers in Bartle’s Taxonomy is most likely to enjoy this game. The story creates conflict in the game because the player may not want to or end up doing the thing it takes to stay sober which will more than likely result in the player loosing the game.

System Dynamics:

The objects used to build game systems in the game are houses, restaurants, a school campus, bars, and parks. There are no properties or behaviors required for the game systems. The basic relationships between system elements are that the character attends these places throughout the game. The game system does not exist as an economy. No new systems emerge from game play. All information about the system is exposed to the player. The players interact with the system by “going” to these places throughout the game. The players do not control the system or receive feedback from the system.

Functionality, Completeness, & Balance:

The game is not yet fully functional or complete. There is no voice not being represented the game just does not flow correctly yet. The game is balanced and symmetrical.

Fun and Accessibility: 

The game is very engaging. The elements that support engagement promote learning. By playing the game the player(s) learn. All of the choices made in the game are meaningful. The choices made relate to the game objective because the game objective is to make a decision based on the learning objective. There are still parts of the game that are broken. Having one to four players is not working well with the game. There needs to be at least two players, with one player there is not enough statistics to gather. Also, the deck of cards still need to be readjusted to help the game flow better. There are no inconsequential choices. The game is fairly easy to play and it does not take long to learn. The player(s) learn how to play by playing the game.

For week 13,  I explained the different learning objectives and elements that are included in the building of my game. The two systems affected by the game design are the social and cognitive processes. For example, Learning and decision making are examples because the children have to learn and decide which shapes belong to which space. The rules of the game are: select a beginning shape. (ex. Circle, square, rectangle, etc.) Then the timer starts for 30 seconds. The objective is to place all the shapes in their appropriate spaces. Whoever complete the game first wins. These rules complement the game. It creates a fun, competitive way to learn different shapes, make new friends, and to enjoy an activity during your free time. After each segment of the game, the winner will receive letters to complete the name “Willie”. Once a player receives all of the letters, they will be crowned winner, with a “Willie Crown”. Each player will receive cookies to enjoy, while playing the game. The game is usually played by children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. There is also Typically Developing children that also play the game. This will prevent players from behaving in inappropriate ways, by having them work together to complete the levels. The outcome of the game is to place each shape in its appropriate space, completing it in the given time span, also completing the word “Willie”. “Willie the Monster”, will be satiated at the end, because the shapes mocks food that the monster will eat. The challenges that may be presented to the player in the game, is making sure each piece fit correctly. (ex. Placing a square into a rectangle shape. That wouldn’t fit correctly.) The player will learn to master how to play with help from other people. This will create a great social environment. This story uses emergent narrative. Each player might approach certain situation in the game differently.

There were many instances in which I realized that there were possible confounds in this weeks operation of my game. The room was a bit cold, in which that could have affected the participants game play. The participants woke up really early in which that could have affected game play as well. 

This week I had the honor of testing my game out in a classroom setting. It was an amazing experience and such an honor to see the children react to my game. Since it was a large group (25 first graders) I had them broken up into 5 groups with 5 players each. Each group had 2 minute to discuss their answer before responding. This encouraged teamwork and to ensure that they worked together to get an answer. Each child in the group had to take a turn in saying their answer out loud. I wanted each player to give an answer so they all felt involved. The children were all eager to take a turn and had so much fun. The questions were all based on subjects they were currently learning. In order to make sure the children were benefitting from the game the teacher set up a short quiz to test each child’s knowledge. The children did amazing and were so proud of themselves. It was an honor too see each child’s reaction and to see them perform so well. It proved that my game is actually beneficial and helping its players. The children were very thankful that I came and played this game with them. They enjoyed learning while having fun. It was studying without all the stress and “boring” reading. The teacher also enjoyed seeing the children so excited and involved. She decided that before each test she is going to have a review based on the way my game is set up. She believes it will help the children before their test and I agree. I am so thankful that I thought of this game and that it is successful. I enjoy helping these children and look forward to testing it further. I had a lot of fun this week working on this process and working with these students. I wish I was able to capture the moment and take pictures of the children. The look on their faces as they were playing the game was priceless, they were extremely thrilled and motivated but unfortunately I was not allowed.

The name of my game is called Speed Round and this game teaches older teens to focus in a timely fashion on associating colors with the correct word. The learning experience the game creates for the player is to reason with yourself and stay focused on the task at hand. 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. In this trail of the game however, there are no conflicts. The game is playful because you experience how to focus on words rather than other people’s scores to be the winner. According to Bartle’s Taxonomy, achievers would be the category this game falls under. The reason is because the common goal is to receive as many points as possible in order to move forward.