All of the Above

Although the learning styles fad had been formally debunked by several research studies, the idea behind learning styles is still very useful for teaching and learning. This week, I took a Kolb Learning Inventory, a Prensky Scale, and a VAK self-assessment. These three analyses were very interesting, but all of them had the same problem: there is no "All of the above" option.

The Kolb inventory asked, "Which two are your highest scores?" Well, actually, my score was 20 for everything: Active Experimentation, Reflective Observation, Concrete Experience, and Abstract Conceptualization. Let's face it: we all learn best when we have ample opportunities for all of these kinds of thinking and learning. I really think the Kolb inventory is a great checklist for making sure my own games and lesson plans include all of these. However, I don't think it is helpful to label myself or my students.

I really didn't know what my score should be on the Prensky Scale. This scale apparently rates the participant's preference for game playing versus studying. My score varies extremely, depending on the context, and that is not the same as being in the middle. For example, my answer to question one would be that "high speed reactions motivate and excite me" when I am practicing and refining a skill, but I would "rather take my time" when I am analyzing a new idea. Or what should I write for question 2,  about multitasking? I like to drive, argue with my wife, and listen to the radio all at the same time. However, when I was struggling to understand "standard error of the mean" in a statistics class, my wife accused me of ignoring her. Does that make me a 3 out of 5 for "Parallel vs. linear processing," or does it simply mean that the situation is more important than the personal label?

Can you guess what answer I wanted to put for all of the questions in the VAK self-assessment? If you said "All of the above" congratulations! But I want to give special attention to question 4:

"If I am teaching someone something new, I tend to:

a) write instructions down for them

b) give them a verbal explanation

c) demonstrate first and then let them have a go"

Um…what kind of teacher doesn't do all three of these and more for every student? Sarcasm aside, checklists like these can help teachers evaluate the games they use in terms of motivation, cognition and interaction.

United States Map Puzzle

This game lets you put the US together with states and capitals onto a jigsaw puzzle. Correct placements remain and help the player figure out incorrect placements. I played this educational puzzle game and assessed it in light of the above learning style checklists. This map puzzle ranks high in Reflective Observation (RO) and Active Experimentation (AE), and moderately high in Abstract Conceptualization (AC). However, it scores very low in Concrete Experience (CE), because feelings and hunches are irrelevant to this kind of puzzle.

This game earns a 25/50 on the Prensky Scale.  It allows the player to take her time and concentrate or to multitask. The player can also fool around and get instant reinforcement. It also provides a high dose of reality with low-tech drag-fit-drop gameplay.

Finally, VAK self-assessment shows that this game is extremely visual, moderately kinesthetic (drag-fit-drop gameplay), and not at all auditory. However, I found myself talking my way through the game aloud, especially when matching the state capitals to their states. So this game may be suitable for auditory learners.

Who Wants to Win a Million Dollars?

This science and math quiz game is like the old TV gameshow "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" This game scores highest in AC on Kolb's learning style inventory, still very high on CE, moderately on AE and very low on RO. I really liked that this game let me think and feel at the same time. The quiz questions were mostly recall based, so there was not much need to experiment, and no need at all to reflect and observe.

This game earns a 22/50 on the Prensky Scale. The quiz is not timed, gives one question at a time, and is entirely text-based. However, the questions are random and interactive; the format is humorous and includes a fantasy element. The game praises and ridicules the player exaggeratedly. The player feels like she is winning and risking real money. The player can also "ask and expert" and "poll the lab," which makes the game feel more like a TV gameshow.

Computer quiz games like this are very visual. It is expensive to make them auditory, and impossible to make them kinesthetic. I prefer classroom quiz games, where the players can race to tag the correct answer and argue with the game host. 

Analysis and Comparison: Best Fit/Least Fit

Puzzle games, like the United States Map Puzzle, and quiz games, like Who Wants to Win a Million Dollars can help to make test preparation more interesting and motivating. Puzzle games might be a better fit for students who are still figuring things out (AE/RO). Quiz games might be a better fit for students who want to review, assess, and get a feel for their progress (AC/CE). Both types of games appear to moderately fit Prensky's "game generation." Quiz games enjoy a slight, but probably insignificant, advantage. Unfortunately, both types of games are also extremely visual on a computer screen, and neglect auditory and kinesthetic activity. This could be remedied by using electronic projectors or SmartBoards to let students stand up and interact.