Back on September 11, 2008, I wrote about the new Spore game and expressed concerns about the way evolution is depicted. I also restated other reviewers’ comments that it is a boring game.  After the incredible hype approaching the release, the media has been pretty silent.

PBS’ “Online NewsHour”, however, did post this article in October: “New ‘Fun Biology’ Video Game Lets Players Tinker with Evolution”. It seems like PBS put “fun” in quotes because they know it isn’t really fun. The author, Quinn Bowman, goes on to reference my blog entry:

Educational value

Educators are mixed over whether Spore belongs in the classroom.

Professor Peter Rillero of Arizona State University wrote on his blog, which focuses on using technology to teach science, that the mechanics of the creature creation in Spore did not accurately reflect how evolution works.



“The notion of evolution as making choices, as deciding to come out of the water to be a land creature and therefore deciding what appendages to gain, and the thought that the more DNA you eat the more evolved are so wrong that I wonder why Will Wright considers this to be science inspired?” Rillero wrote.

”

But then Bowman adds this quote:

“However, University of Florida associate professor of geology Joe Meert said games like Spore ‘are a natural place for students to gravitate to.’ 

’Even the things that (Spore) gets wrong, it could be a teachable moment. Here’s something the game gets wrong.  Why is it wrong?’

Dr. Meert seems like a fascinating and good guy and he is someone who wants the public to understand evolution. So with some reluctance I say his comments remind me of College of Education field offices telling interns with crummy mentor teachers, “Well at least you will learn what not to do.” Spore tried to show itself as a great science education tool. We have to recognize first and foremost, that it is not. Teachers should have great mentors, our children should have great science education resources. 

I don’t go around boring my friends and family talking about scientific inaccuracies in the media around me.  I would not expect history educators to criticize Call of Duty’s portrayal of WWII history. Unless of course, the game made claims that it was a great way to learn history, and started touting all of the historians that had been consulted in developing the game. Spore, on the other hand, deserves to be criticized.

Not only was Spore incredibly hyped, it wanted to develop the idea that it would promote an understanding of evolution. This was evident in the September 9^th TV Show: “Build a Better Being” produced and aired by the National Geographic Channel through a partnership with Spore. Getting famous evolutionary biologists to talk about their work, and then showing scenes from Spore, could have encouraged many to falsely believe that the evolutionary biologists were supporting it.

This is far from the case, and the journal Science reported complaints by scientists involved in the documentary. “I literally never heard about Spore until I saw myself on television in this infomercial about the game,” says Cliff Tabin, a geneticist at Harvard University. “It’s an outrage (as quoted by Bohannon, 2008).”

Other Voices of Concern

Fortunately, I am not the lone voice in criticizing Spore. Here are some other views that are critical of the “evolutionary science” in Spore.

T. Ryan Gregory and Niles Eldredge describe Spore in this way:

It is, in reality, a relatively standard real-time strategy game with the same basic unlocking of features, upgrading of levels, and choices about aesthetics and function as with vehicles or buildings in other similar games. The units happen to look like organisms, the features that can be added are mouths, eyes, and limbs, and the currency is called “DNA”, but really that does not make the game anything more than superficially biological.

John Bohannon wrote in “Flunking Spore”:

So over the past month, I’ve been playing Spore with a team of scientists, grading the game on each of its scientific themes. When it comes to biology, and particularly evolution, Spore failed miserably. According to the scientists, the problem isn’t just that Spore dumbs down the science or gets a few things wrong–it’s meant to be a game, after all–but rather, it gets most of biology badly, needlessly, and often bizarrely wrong.

Manure

How does the game’s creator Will Wright respond to the controversy? Well despite the scientific inaccuracies in Spore, he concludes:  “It’s manure to seed future scientists” (as quoted by Highfield, 2008). Some quotes are so good they don’t need further commentary.

Enjoyment

Of course there is also the issue of how enjoyable this game is. Here is a clip from the New York Times (Schiesel, December 2008):

BEST DISAPPOINTMENT: SPORE If Electronic Arts has learned anything from its experience with Spore, it ought to be that a software company should just let its games do the talking, rather than relentlessly hyping a game for years before its release only to deliver a one-note electronic toy in the end. Spore would not have fizzled so quickly if expectations had not been so ludicrously inflated to begin with. Perhaps more important, it showed that maybe even a game god like Will Wright, the game’s creator, can stand to be reminded of the basics once in a while. Spore was great at letting the player create something from nothing. But in the end it just wasn’t that interesting to play with. Making cool stuff is a great part of video games, but the play, more than in any other media, really is the thing.

Promoting Spore

Yet, many people are willing to promote Spore because it has science in it and is therefore thought to be educational. It is not difficult to find quotes like this:  “With its educational subject matter, Spore is the kind of game any parent should be pleased to find their child absorbed in” (Alderman, 2008).

Conclusions

Since all of the pre-release and release hype, not much has been written about Spore. Pretending to be good science and actually promoting accurate science are different entities, and many in the media will take superficial views. There is a good chance that the media writers also hold serious science misconceptions, so they don’t even know when something is inaccurate. Therefore, it is up to scientists and science teachers to help the public understand which products are good educational tools for promoting science education.

References

Alderman, Naomi. (September 8, 2008). Spore: the game where only the fittest survive. The Guardian, Feature Pages, p. 3.

Bohannon, John (October 24, 2008). VIDEO GAMES:
’Spore’ Documentary Spawns Protest By Scientists Who Starred in It. Vol. 322. no. 5901, p. 517
DOI: 10.1126/science.322.5901.517a

Highfield, Roger. (September 9, 2008). How evolution inspired a computer game. The Daily Telegraph, Science, p. 27.

National Public Radio. Talk of the Nation, September 12, 2008. Spore’: Does Evolution Really Happen Like That?

Schiesel, Seth. (December 21, 2008). The Zombies Look Better Every Year. The New York Times. Arts and Leisure Desk; VIDEO GAMES; Pg. 24

Snider, M. (September 9, 2008.). Social networking goes gaming. USA Today, Retrieved December 24, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

The reviews are coming in about the new game SPORE, and they are less than inspiring. Along with its restrictive DRM policy and the weak reviews, I am not going to purchase this software for me or my sons. While I did use and write about Creator Creator, my writing about SPORE is not based upon first-hand use.

The review are in….

Chad Sapieha of The Globe and Mail writes: “…dull and repetitive play makes evolving your own species more frustrating than fun.”

Lou Keston of the AP press writes: “No single element of ‘Spore’ is revolutionary in and of itself. Each of the levels feels like a simplified version of a game you’ve played before.”

Matt Peckham, in his blog for PC World, describes it this way: “…the game’s still a few chromosomes short of a genome.”

Seth Schiesel of the New York Times, writes, “Beneath all the eye candy, most of the basic core play dynamics in Spore are unfortunately rather thin.”

Chris Kohler of Wired wrote about the top ten things he learned from playing SPORE. Number one on his list, “Spore is kind of boring.”

And speaking of learning, is this a tool for science education?

While science was theoretically the driving force for SPORE creator Will Wright, the descriptions of SPORE do not indicate this will help people learn science. When the science is discussed it sounds more like misconceptions, rather than accurate understandings, are being fostered.

For example, notice how the science is described in these two reviews:

Thierry Nguyen of 1up.com states, “If you really need a quick one-line summary of what Spore is, I guess I’d describe it as ‘intelligent design via minigames.’”

Matt Peckham describes early parts of SPORE this way: “Consuming bits of matter builds up your DNA, which you can then spend on new parts available inside a simple design tool that pops up whenever you choose to mate.”

The notion of evolution as making choices, as deciding to come out of the water to be a land creature and therefore deciding what appendages to gain, and the thought that the more DNA you eat the more evolved are so wrong that I wonder why Will Wright considers this to be science inspired? Hopefully, the travel in outer space and the ecosystem building are more accurate. But for me, I am in no hurry to find out. 

Image Notes

1. I was in New York City last week, and decided to visit the neighborhood where I was born (lower East Side). I took this picture of the giant SPORE ad then. The text reads “Mitosis Happens.”

2. The image below is from the Activity Object “Natural Selection” from Adaptive Curriculum. 

Resources

Evolution Facts and Misconceptions, Adaptive Curriculum.

Evolution Resources, Kevin Miller

(Note: I completed a review of science software for a project I was working on in 2000. As I re-read the review, I remembered some of the titles that I really liked. I also remember the state of science software, still dependent on the CD-ROM. I think it is good to remember the old titles and contributions to the field, so I am reproducing this review. I deleted some sections and the WWW links that are no longer working. Prices are from the era.)

—————————————————————————–

Effective Science Software for Elementary Science Teacher Educators

I attempted to find quality science software for use in the elementary science classroom.

Probe, database, and spreadsheet software are valuable in science education and offer great possibilities for promoting inquiry. However, I did not focus on these resources because many of us are already familiar with the value of these time-tested resources. Other software continues to be developed and it is much more difficult for science educators to stay current on effective software.

 Effective and Ineffective Strategies to Identify Effective Software

1.     Searching the ERIC database was not a good avenue to find science software. They do not publish abstracts for reviews of software.

2.     Discussion with classroom teachers revealed some highly praised titles and series. 

3.     Submitting a request for effective software to the AETS listserve produced some recommended titles and series. 

4.     I found software review sites on the Internet. The best ones are: www.childrenssoftware.com and tic.cuesta.com. The latter, from the California Instructional Technology Clearinghouse, is indexed to standards.

5.     I found the best way to identify excellent software is to try them. Some programs had one or more features that made me really like them.

 

Distinguishing Characteristics for Effective Science Software

The state of science education software is far from perfect.

“There is widespread agreement that one of the principal factors now limiting the extensive and effective use of technology within American schools is the relative dearth of high-quality computer software and digital content designed specifically for that purpose….The commercial availability of software and information resources designed to support student-centered, constructivist approaches to education is even more limited, and there is little evidence to date of large-scale, well-funded efforts by either traditional educational software vendors, multimedia developers, or textbook publishers to develop such content” (President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, 1997).

I think the whole field is best thought of as a “work in progress” with some software having excellent features. Important characteristics that emerged in my search are:

1.     Fostering quality learning experience for important science content and processes.

2.     Providing an effective context for learning.

3.     Having a high degree of usability.

4.     Using a computer’s abilities to provide interactive or simulated experiences that go well beyond simply reading.

Reference

President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (1997). Report to the President on the Use of Technology.  The White House  http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST/k-12ed.html#4.6

A Review of Computer Software for Elementary Science Education

            I did not have a budget to purchase software, so my personal review is limited to titles that I could borrow. The software is listed from most recommended to least recommended. All titles are for both Macintosh and Windows platforms unless specified.

Zurk’s Alaskan Trek (Soleil Software, 1995)

Ages 6-10, $28.95

This is a good overall program with a fabulous ecosystem feature called Animal Theater. Children add different species of plants and animals. They click “play” and observe how the animals interact and what they eat. For example, the bear eats some cow parsnips but avoids the Labrador tea; the ground squirrel runs from the arctic fox and sometimes gets caught. Children can write their observations below the interaction and save it to their portfolio. In MovieMaker children choose sentence options and create their own movies. Relative weights (and ideas of less than, greater than, and equal to) of animals are explored through a scale activity. How many lemmings equal the weight of a bald eagle?  Also includes plant and animal field guides. Can choose from English, French, and Spanish.

Sammy’s Science House (Edmark, 1994)

Ages 3 to 6, $19.95

Brilliant sorting section, where living things and rocks are sorted in hundreds of ways (for example, sorting animals by fur, feathers, vs. scales and sorting omnivores vs. herbivores). Items must be clicked on to sort. The click causes the item name to be said, which helps children learn the names of living things.  Make Your Own Weather has children control rain, wind, and temperature and see the effects. “Seasons” presents a view of Acorn Pond where the children can click on organism to find out information and then change the seasons. Both of these sections present temperatures in Celsius and Fahrenheit scales. All the explorations have a free or guided mode.

Telling Our Stories: Women in Science (Tom Snyder, 1997)

Ages 11-15, $79.00, www.tomsnyder.com

Program goals include providing a personal introduction to real-life scientists and breaking traditional stereotypes. Good database of information about 120 women in science. In-depth multimedia focus on 8 selected women scientist with useful in-computer science experiments that reflect their work, such as on superconductivity, viruses and hormones, and animal communication. Includes a useful teacher guide and student handouts to prompt students to search the database and process learning from the experiments.

Zap: Thinking Science Series: Save the Show with Sound, Light, and Electricity (Edmark, 1998)

Ages 8-12, $29.95

Entertaining, good problem solving, appeals to older children. Excellent hands-on science simulations for light (plane and spherical mirrors, lenses, color mixing) and electrical circuit. Decent simulations for sound.

Gizmos and Gadgets: Super Solver Series (The Learning Company, 1995)

Ages 7-12

This was the best at combining an arcade style game (Donkey Kong) with interactive science activities and science learning. The game took some getting used to for me but children would probably pick this up quickly. As you go through doors in the game, you solve science problems and collect parts to build cars or airplanes to race the villain.

Zurk’s Rainforest Lab 2.1.3 (Soleil Software, 1995)

Ages 5-9, $36.95

Does a good job of showing the vertical layering of the tropical rain forest and promotes animal identification. Egg hunt with changing rain forest backdrop is fun for young children, but there seems to be no science objective. Photograph portfolio is a good idea. Animal sorting activity helps reinforce animal classification (mammal, bird, amphibian, reptile, and insect). Text and narration are in English, French, or Spanish.

Science Sleuths Volume 1, The Mysteries of the Blob and the Exploding Lawnmowers (Videodiscovery, 1995)

Ages 11 to 14, $39.95

Very good use of interviews, science tools, print resources, and a personal notebook to solve fun and interesting problems. Like some Tom Snyder products, but can be done in far less time.

Rainforest Researchers (Tom Snyder, 1995)

Ages 11 to 14, $199.95, www.tomsnyder.com

Excellent Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Model, good use of data analysis, and excellent focus on problem solving. Created for the “one computer classroom” but the process can take a long time to complete.  Although this software is recommended for middle school students, it may be too advanced for this age level.

I Love Science (Dorling Kindersley, 1997)

Ages 7-11, $17.95

Many simple interactive science activities, questions after each activity, point reward system for certificates or hands-on science activity sheets. Matter section activities are the best. They are organized by sorting, testing, changes and separation.

My First Amazing Science Explorerr (Dorling Kindersley, 1999)

Ages 5-9, $19.95

Motivational sticker and badge system includes a tracking system for students to see their progress. Excellent open ended questions in Science Workbook including a section “What About Me?” Includes printable hands-on science activities. Limited interactive activities in the program, all 8 involve sorting. Life Cycles also involve sequencing.

Thinkin’ Things: Galactic Brain Benders (Edmark, 1999)

Ages 8-12, $29.95

I only reviewed one free download from this program, Kinetics Lab, and it was great. You have control over balls on a table and you can do millions of things to see how they move. The software was one of the highest scorers on the Children’s Software Evaluation.

Thinkin’ Things: Collection 1 (Edmark, 1999)

Ages 4 to 8, $29.95

Very motivational activities and great opportunities to develop skills in observing, comparing, pattern recognition, and combining things in creative ways. Science content does not seem to be a goal, but there are opportunities to adjust variables and make observations regarding moving objects and musical notes.

Thinkin’ Things: Collection 11 (Edmark, 1999)

Ages 6 to 12, $29.95

Advanced version of Thinkin’ Things: Collection 1 but allows for more opportunities for creativity and spatial perception.  But again science is not a major goal.

Stellaluna (Living Books/Random House, 1996)

Ages 3 to 7, $49.95, www.intellitools.com

This living book follows the journey of Stellaluna, an African fruit bat separated from her mother. After the text is read, there are excellent graphics, sounds, and animations. You have the option of making it so children can touch “hot spots” to see things happen. There is also a bat quiz. CD-ROM can be put into a stereo to listen to Stellaluna songs. Package comes with original book by Janell Cannon.

Triazzle (Berkeley Systems, 1995)

$23.95, www.dangilbert.com

Fun tropical rain forest puzzle. This is an electronic version of the triangle board puzzles sold in stores. Brilliant animation when pieces are connected, for example joining like halves of a frog causes it to move in a realistic manner. Good for observing and problem solving, but limited science content.

The Way Things Work version 2. (Dorling Kindersley, 1996), $24.95

At best an encyclopedia with stuff about principles of physics, names of inventors, and how machines work. Lots of text, very few useful animations or interactive science activities. Buy the book, not this software. Includes some graphics, sounds, and movies to use in other applications.

The Magic School Bus Explores the Ocean (Microsoft, 1996)

Ages 6 to 10, $19.99

Brings back the famous cast from the TV show, but this program was buggy and confusing.  There are some simple experiments and games. Lots of things to click on. But overall, this was not a satisfying experience.

Multimedia Bugs: The Complete Interactive Guide to Insects (Inroads Interactive, 1996).

Excellent high level information about bugs with clear graphics and great photographs. Too advanced for elementary or middle school students. Interactive activities are not thrilling; they consist of moving a mouse over a field to reveal an insect name, photo, or sound.

Earth Quest (Dorling Kindersley, 1997)

Ages 10+, $49.95

Well-done graphics, but you need strong Earth science knowledge to get moving. Far too advanced for middle school.

Cosmic Osmo and the Worlds Beyond the Mackerel (Cyan, 1989, 1990, 1994)

Ages 5 and up, Macintosh only

$49.95

Old style software put on a CD-ROM and packaged in a modern wrapper. Its black and white, no moving graphics, but it is a fun and clever exploration of a different solar system. Most time seems to be spent in buildings, so there is limited science learning. Yet some consider this HyperCard program a classic.

 

—————————————————————————–

 

(FINAL NOTE: Remember the above is a reproduction from a work I completed in 2000. I was judging based upon the context of other software and my experience. I respect the contributions of all, even those that I did not judge as highly.–PR)