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 9th 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.
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.
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.
Last evening my 11 year-old son shared with me the YouTube Video “Charlie Bit My Finger”. If you are more like my son and less like me, you probably have already seen the cute sibling clip that is approaching 70 million views and dozens of new posted remixes and re-enactments. If you do a Google search in quotes, you can find over 300,000 sites sharing or discussing this video.
As science teachers, we know the power of analogies to help students connect new concepts to existing conceptions already wired into their brains. Certainly, knowing what students know is a prerequisite for using analogies. References to pop culture can be a good source. Now, for example, if someone does something that is likely to cause a problem in science class, I could say, “Obviously if you put your finger in Charlie’s mouth, it’s going to get bitten!” And of course, we know the power of humor for keeping science class lively. Every time my son says, “Char-lie bit me and that really hurt,” with a British accent, I chuckle.
I had a science teacher colleague in the Bronx, who argued with me that we shouldn’t relate to students through their culture, but should expose them to a higher culture. Since she went to Stanford as an undergraduate, and I went to the University of Buffalo, it is possible that I never scaled that same cultural plateau (but I did have my high school biology class dissect chicken wings which are world famous because of Buffalo, NY). But I know there are others like me who like to stay connected with the youth we teach.
So how does my generation stay connected with the top videos?
Within the YouTube environment, clicking on videos, you can sort by “most popular” or “most viewed” and you can select the timeframe desired (such as one day, one week, or one month). In this way, I came across “Sneezing Panda”, usable in all sorts of lessons, such as stimulus and response, the nervous system, or animal behavior. There is also the Viral Video Chart, where you can see the graphs of popularity rankings for videos on the internet, not just on YouTube.
Of course, I had to select the category “Science and Technology” to see the most viewed videos of all time in this category. Sadly, most had nothing to do with science, but I found the very well produced and suspenseful “Oxygen (new version) – Periodic Table of Videos”.
So you can search, view, and relate to the world of adolescents. Or, you can wait for an adolescent to share a bit of their world with you. In retrospect, I’m glad I didn’t discover “Charlie” on my own because it was delightful having my son share it with me. And even though he saw it many times before, when he showed it to me we both had hearty laughs—together.
Resources:
Adaptive Curriculum’s “Habit Designer: Panda” (which will create a much nicer habitat than what you see in the “Sneezing Panda” video.
Perhaps the first assay we learned in science class was the starch test, where we dropped iodine on a substance, and if it turned “blue-black”, it indicated the presence of starch.
Now, as modern-day science teachers, we carry on the wisdom of generations of science teachers, and continue to avoid calling the positive result “black and blue”, as no science teacher wants students to associate bruises with white bread or potatoes.
The starch test has become such a common test, that I believe the term “starch test” should replace “litmus test” as the analogy cliché for social or political tests. (For example, Wikipedia states, “A litmus test is a question asked of a potential candidate for high office, the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would choose to proceed with the appointment or nomination.”) How many non-science teachers even know what litmus is or what a litmus test is? Let’s start using analogies more people can relate to. [People would really start liken that (with an intended pun on the nature of litmus)!]
Today is the six-month anniversary of this blog. It seems such a short time ago, but alas, on June 20, 2008, my first blog was posted. This made me wonder, “How does one know if one is successful after just six short months?
To find the answer to this query, I did a search on blogs. I found no numerical metrics for success. Looking at the latest report from Google Analytics, I did see that more than 35 people per day have read this blog, and that this month alone, there were over 1,000 readers from 70 countries/territories.
The search for blogs about blogs (i.e. metablogs) yielded no numbers, which I viewed once again as evidence that collective wisdom can often be found in groups of people. The qualitative metric I did derive, however, from reading the advice of more experienced blog pundits was this: If a blogger enjoys writing about their interests, and some people are reading, then it should be considered successful. As far as this starch test is concerned, I judge this blog as a success, and I thank you for reading it.
But now on to science teaching and technology, which is the focus of this blog. In the living world, photosynthesis is one of the most important processes. Fortunately, Adaptive Curriculum has a free interactive activity that teachers and students (from all 70 countries/territories) can use to learn more about photosynthesis. In “Plants Needs for Photosynthesis” students conduct several investigations, where they can add or subtract water, light, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. The plant then does its thing (AKA: metabolism) for four hours.
After this, the starch test is performed to see if photosynthesis occurred. In the starch test, the leaves are boiled and then dipped into hot alcohol to remove the green chlorophyll. Next, the leaves are dipped into room temperature water. Finally, drops of iodine are placed upon the leaves. Through these discovery-based learning experiences, students are able to determine the conditions that are needed for photosynthesis to occur.
Thank you to Adaptive Curriculum for giving us this free Flash-based activity, and for their support of this blog. And no matter what your starch test or litmus test for happiness may be, I wish you a happy holiday season.
Resources:
If you (or your students) don’t know what a litmus test is, here are some links:
Whether at the high school or middle school level, students studying graphs of motion are often confused. One area of confusion occurs in the difference between distance-time graphs and displacement-time graphs. Virtual activities can cause more confusion, unless the right ones are chosen.
Distance-time graphs are a part of many middle school math and science curricula. A Google search for “distance-time graphs” reveals about 10,500 websites with many Java-based and Flash-based online activities. The problem for physics learners and teachers is that in many cases, the developers call their graph a distance-time graph but in reality they are displacement-time graphs.
Here are some examples of (otherwise) good websites making this error:
There are a few good sites that accurately portray distance-time graphs.
“Crocodile-clips” is a simple, free site where students move a helicopter and create a real-time distance-time graph. It doesn’t matter if the helicopter is moved away from or closer to the starting point. The true distance traveled is displayed on the graph. It is simple but effective.
Commonwealth Curriculum Pack (CCP) is a more involved site. I used this with my mixed age physics class last week and it made the point and kept their interest.
This site uses the context of the 100-meter race to show different arrival speeds. Quickly, my students learned that the steeper the slope (gradient), the greater the speed of the runner. Then we viewed several nice animated sequences of interpolation, which they then interpreted.
Students observe stick figures run 400-meter races. They can see the runners move at actual speeds or average speeds, so this serves as a good way to help students understand instantaneous speed versus average speed.
Motion graphs will probably always be confusing for some students. We can reduce confusion with distance-time and displacement-time graphs by using internet resources that accurately portray the difference.
There were two science articles this week that are interesting follow ups to the blog I wrote about a fifth grade teacher showing YouTube videos of the lunar landing “hoax”.
Seth Borenstein (an AP Science writer) wrote the article entitled, “Long-lost lunar photos get another day in the sun.” According to Borenstein, Nancy Evans kept the pre-Apollo lunar probe photo machine (1,000 pounds) in her garage for two decades! Way to go Nancy! Beyond preserving these important images for science students and researchers, maybe my wife will let me keep my canoe in the garage for a second decade.
A group of talented and enthusiastic folks repaired the photo machine and is now processing (at an abandoned McDonald’s restaurant) and releasing the photos at www.moonviews.com. This is a great deed they are doing – let’s hope all the old ketchup and grease in their humble workspace is gone. These photos were originally used to help decide where to land on the moon. The image to the right is a newly released image of “the Earthrise.” I love the retro feel of the images. When we get new images of the Moon by upcoming probes, it will be great to compare old and new to see what changes have occurred in the lunar landscape after 40+ years.
The other article is by another AP writer Gavin Rabinowitz: “India celebrates planting its flag on moon.” India is getting ambitious in space exploration as natural extensions of its scientific, technical, and economic progress. From the article’s headline, and from The Hindustan Times headline, “The Tricolor has Landed” and the Hindu’s“India leaves its footprints on the moon, you might imagine a probe sending the green, white, and saffron flag to the moon, and in true Wallace and Gromit fashion, a robot would come out to unfurl and plant the Indian Flag. But no! Rather, the space agency painted the probe the colors of the Indian flag and the probe crashed into the moon at a speed of 5,000 kilometers per hour. This would be more than 14 times the speed of sound in air! The probe’s name was Chandrayaan-1, where Chandrayaan is an ancient Sanskrit word that I suspect means tiny flakes of green, white, and saffron mixed with gray dust.
This may go down as the cheesiest flag planting in history; nevertheless, it is still a remarkable technological achievement. India joins with the US, European Space Agency, Russia, China, and Japan as the only countries to send a spacecraft to the Moon. India plans to send a rover to the Moon by 2011 and perhaps if General Motors goes out of business, in 2012 we can buy a version of the rover for traversing the large craters of unrepaired roads in Flint, Detroit, and Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Grammar: Capital Offences
I am not one to play the “holier than thou” card, and when it comes to grammar I am far from being an expert.But when it comes to capitalization of certain familiar celestial objects, many writers follow illogical conventions, including Borenstein and Rabinowitz. Not that I am blaming them, they are following a convention, although in my mind, it is a convention that should be thrown out. Since we capitalize Venus, Mars, and Jupiter, isn’t Earth just as good as other planets? (“If a meteor hits me, don’t I crater? If my plates move, don’t I crack?) Shouldn’t we capitalize Earth whenever we refer to it as a planet? I say, “Yes, this is logical!” Of course if you are talking about the soil and call it earth that is an entirely different matter. To whit, “The aliens from Mars came to Earth and scooped up some earth and then went to Venus.”
And if you are talking about our Moon, it should be also capitalized, just as you do for Phobos, and Europa. In fact, the term moon refers to large natural objects that orbit planets. So if you are talking about the Earth’s moon, called the Moon, you should capitalize it like you do the names of other moons. And this way it is clear you are talking about a specific celestial object. For instance, “Our astronomy class focused on moons. During the night we observed the following moons: Moon, Io, and Ganymede.
And we capitalize the common names of stars such as Proxima Centaur, Sirius, and Rigil Kentaurus so we should capitalize the Sun, when we refer to it as a celestial object.
It seems the only logic for not capitalizing Sun, Earth, and Moon is that we use these terms a lot. But that logic is weak. Familiarity shouldn’t change capitalization rules. Even if I say, “Arizona” a lot, it should still be capitalized. And, “President Bush” should keep his capitals even after he leaves the capital.
Resources
Adaptive Curriculum’s Flash-based Activity Object Entitled, “Star Types” Students send probes to find a planet suitable for human life.
Chandrayaan is indeed an ancient Sanskrit word but it means, “moon craft.”
1,000 pounds is approximately 454 kilograms.
I have a racing canoe so it doesn’t come anywhere near weighing 1,000 pounds. But it takes up more room than the old photo processor.
5,000 kilometers is approximately 3,107 miles.
Although Ann Arbor doesn’t directly make cars or trucks, the collapse of the auto industry would have sweeping consequences for many other industries, universities, towns, and states. The inclusion of “Ann Arbor” is to make this point and it does not constitute an insult to the university in that town, nor is it meant to draw attention to its 2008 football season.
I received the following email from a reader of this blog:
Hi Peter – I have a professional question for you as a teacher, a parent, and a science guru…
Do you think it is appropriate or inappropriate for a 5th grade (kids age 10) teacher to show her class a series of YouTube movies about the theory that the US astronauts did NOT land on the moon back in the 1960’s?This is during a unit on Astronomy.
I know my own take on it – I just wanted to see what you thought/think?
-Amy
Thank you for the question Amy. Here is my answer….
First, it is difficult to know the motivation of the teacher for showing this. If she had expertise in the space program and she was presenting these non-scientific ideas to show how science and logic can refute them, I would say excellent.
But alas, I suspect this was not the case. More likely the teacher heard of the allegations that the landing on the Moon was a fraud, and was interested enough to read the allegations, without spending the time to look deeper. Sharing just the allegations with students through YouTube videos is not, in my opinion, what a teacher of science should do.
I still remember my parents waking me up from bed and leading me downstairs to the playroom to watch the astronauts landing on the Moon. The NASA accomplishment helped Americans realize the importance of science and technology, and for many children, it ignited more interest in science.
Of course there are so many lunar landing conspiracy theories throwing up so many trial balloons, that it would take a team of scientists a lifetime to keep shooting them all down. Some are easy to dismiss. “Hey, the US flag is blowing in the wind and there is no air on the moon. It’s a fake!” Although I don’t remember much as a 9 year old, I remember the announcers making the point that since there was no air or wind, NASA put wires into the flag to hold it up.
Then there is the logical question, why can’t we just point a telescope at the places where they landed so we can see if their stuff is there?
But according to NASA, “The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide.” We will someday have probes and people return to the moon that will confirm the existence of these leftover materials. You might think that would put it all to rest but guess what? This is already anticipated by the conspiracy theorists, who say, well un-manned vessels could have put the materials there.
If it was a hoax, you would think the fewer people involved the better. Why not pretend to go just once, instead of nine times so less people are involved? There are 12 astronauts that walked on the moon, who indicated it really happened. There are hundreds of other NASA personnel who also say the same thing. From personal accounts to moon rocks, the evidence suggests this did happen.
I can’t take the time to research all the theories and all the counter-arguments. But in my mind, science is so rarely taught in elementary classrooms, that it is a sin to spend science instructional time on pseudo-science via YouTube videos. Let’s spend time helping students learn about science and the contributions it has made.
I had the good fortune to spend a few days in the City of Brotherly Love. Of course, having a friend with local insights and views into the culture made the travel experience more intriguing. The city of Philadelphia, which I suspect is a friendly place under normal circumstances, was exuding globs of amiability the morning after their beloved Phillies clinched their first National League title in a very long time.
My friend, John Larkin, took me to an Italian restaurant for lunch where I had my first real Philly cheesesteak sandwich. I asked John how to have it, and he said, “With Whiz.” So I had it with Cheese Whiz, with onions, and with mushrooms, all on an Amoroso roll. I took a picture (to the right) and enjoyed my lunch.
John went on to tell me about Geno’s and Pat’s, two local establishmentsthat are famous for their cheesesteaks. Intriguingly, he told that Geno’s would kick you out of line if you didn’t know what you were doing when you ordered. This even applied to foreign tourists. Pat’s was more welcoming.
There was something about the arrogance of Geno’s that attracted me. It must be a great cheesesteak for them to be able to kick people out of line who were hesitant in their ordering. So I walked from the East Market train station to South Philly to Geno’s. I went up to the window where the workers/owners were raised on a floor a few feet higher than the sidewalk. I noticed the menu painted on the wall had one thing: cheesesteak sandwiches, and the only option was, “Whiz, American, or provolone cheese.” With a little trepidation, I ordered the Philly steak with provolone and onions. The man up high turned to the cook and said, “Provolone wit.”The “wit” meant “with onions”. I must have gotten it right because I wasn’t kicked out of line. When I asked about a drink, I was told that that was at a different window, so I paid for, and received my sandwich, and proceeded to the next window to pay for, and receive my drink.
It was a delightful cheesesteak; the quality of the beef was better than any other I have had on a sandwich. Although I enjoyed the cheesesteak at the Italian restaurant, this one was much better. I, of course, had to check out Pat’s across the street, and I noticed that they had a lot more options on their menu. The options did look interesting, but I was full.
What does this have to do with technology in science education? There are a few analogies that are detailed below. These analogies lead to questions that we need to think about and ultimately answer.
Arrogance of Computer Makers. After the Apple computer faded away, and up to the last couple of years, there seemed to be an arrogant disdain by computer makers for the educational market place. Sure, they were willing to sell computers to schools, but how much effort did they really put into producing computers that were fully adapted for classroom use?And today, is the arrogance gone? To be sure, as we are seeing mini-notebooks evolve, with names such as “Classmates” (by Intel), the educational marketplace is garnering attention. But beyond being smaller and less expensive, are these really fully adapted for the classroom? And what about desktops? Even though we heard talk of one hard drive running several keyboards and monitors, thus reducing costs dramatically, I haven’t seen these in schools. I see one CPU, one monitor, one keyboard, and one mouse. Even the idea of multiple mice (which I wrote about in a previous blog) has not happened. When will the commercial producers of computers focus their machines on being great tools for the classrooms? Perhaps it is time to wander across the street to find Pat’s….
Focus versus Wide Applications. In the 1970s and 1980s, there were rich varieties of science software titles in many schools. Then consolidations in the education software industry and budget cut backs left many schools with just the suite of Microsoft Products. Students could use Excel, PowerPoint, and Word in many different contexts. In a sense, we went from Pat’s to Geno’s. Perhaps simplicity was good. Indeed, in some of the more successful software applications, such as Inspiration, the simplicity of purpose (concept mapping) make it a strong tool. New products are coming out, such as Pasco’s SPARK, but they purposefully don’t promise to do everything. The SPARK has focus, yet the educational world has matured enough so that we can and should have a rich variety of science educational tools. It is time to move beyond Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Within the variety, good, simple tools are valued; tools that, like the iPod, do only a few things, but they do them well.
Reluctant to ask for Help. During the teaching part of the year, teachers are as busy as any professionals I know. Teachers know how busy they are and thus how busy their colleagues are. It is no wonder that teachers may be reluctant to ask colleagues for technology help that would involve more than a few minutes. So, many teachers stay in their comfort zone, not pushing the edge because they are not asking for help.This is probably not because the teacher is “afraid of being kicked out of the line,” but because they know how busy their colleagues are. Where are teachers supposed to go for help when everybody seems so busy? From the fellow science teacher to the teacher who gets a prep period to run the computer lab, there seems to be no great solution for support. Perhaps online support and training, such asAdaptive Curriculum’s use of Webex presentations can help solve the problem.
When I visited Philadelphia, I started at Geno’s. Next time I will go to Pat’s.I think I will enjoy the variety, and I think I will be calmer as I ask for a cheesesteak with provolone, onions, AND mushrooms. And I just might ask them, is it possible to get raw onions instead of grilled?
Wordle is a tool for displaying words as a graphic image that has implications for science education. The size of the words is a relative indicator of their frequency of use. At the Wordle website I entered the URL for this blog, and received a JAVA-produced image. This image is presented above.
Software applications seem to be a creative playground for Feinberg in that he produces what he is interested in and let’s others play with them depending upon their interest. I think Wordle is the most promising classroom tool he has created. But of course, he leaves it to us science educators to explore how to use the tool.
I have just completed 11 days of electricity explorations with a middle school class. I put the text for all my lesson plans into Wordle’s create page and it produced an interesting word art graphic. Teachers will have to take a screen shot of the image to share it with students. (Macintosh: command-shift-4 produces cross-hairs to capture the image, which then appears on your desktop.)
It was interesting to see words such as day, one, and two appear prominently. In checking the word count (see image to left), I realized how often I used the term “one” (apparently it is found in terms such as “someone” as well as pure uses) as I had it over 40 times. These words are not related to electricity, so in MS Word, I deleted (through find and replace) these terms and redid the Wordle image. It is presented below. I will share the image with my students for their review and reaction. It does present an interesting way to view key vocabulary in science.
I am excited by the potential of Wordle as I stand along the shore. Teachers can make their own “Word Art” or borrow creations of others. There is an ocean of potential waiting to be explored by creative science educators.
Useful Resources for Electricity and Electricity Science Activities
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.
Ever since, and probably before, Robert Yager’s (1983) study that suggested the amount of new vocabulary in science textbooks exceeded the number of vocabulary words for learning a foreign language, many educators have been concerned with the number of terms introduced in science classes and methods to help students learn vocabulary.
Recent reforms of state standards, starting with Project 2061, have hopefully reduced the amount of superficial knowledge we ask students to learn. Nevertheless, the new vocabulary can be daunting. The NCLB focus on math and English, with the consequential neglect of science in the elementary grades has resulted in many students entering the middle grades with deficits in their science vocabulary (Cunningham & Allington,2007).
The teaching of vocabulary is the job of all teachers (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2002). The understanding of content vocabulary is, after all, an excellent predictor of success in the subject area (Wilcox 2006). While inquiry skills, concept development, and understanding are more important goals, students knowing and using key vocabulary are important outcomes of science education.
I recently discovered a tool to assist in vocabulary acquisition. Andrew Sutherland createdQuizletin 2005when he was a 15 year-old student studying French vocabulary. From what I can tell, it has become a phenomenal success, with over 200,000 registered users. More than flashcards, Quizlet has activities in the following sections: (a) Familiarize, (b) Learn, (c) Test, (d) Play Scatter, and (e) Play Space Race. The great thing about Quizlet is it is all internet based, so there is no need to download and install software, which can be annoying in some situations and impossible in many schools.
Students can type in their own words and definitions and then learn them through a variety of activities. I also like, however, having access to the great repository of already prepared quizlets. For instance, I just taught a unit on magnetism in my son’s middle school classroom. If I would have discovered Quizlet sooner I might have assigned the quizlet on magnets to review for the test. As a parent, my other son (in third grade) had some vocabulary words to learn from his language arts book in the section “Pepita Talks Twice.” A few different quizlets for these words were already established. My son and I reviewed a few words on my iPhone on the way back from soccer practice.
While we need to be mindful of reducing the “tyranny of terminology” that sometimes describes science courses, we must also help our students learn the key words. Quizlet is a free tool that can help students learn and use scientific vocabulary.
Resources
Adaptive Curriculum, Magnetic Field ofMagnet. http://www.adaptivecurriculum.com/us/details/USSXP080401
Cunningham, P. M. & Allington, R. L. (2007). Classrooms thatwork: They can all read and write.4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Wilcox, J. (2006). Chicago teachers learn to build academic vocabulary. ASCD Education Update 48 (6): 1–2.
Blachowicz, C., and P. Fisher. 2002. Teaching vocabulary in allclassrooms. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Quizlet. http://quizlet.com/
Thelen, J. N. (1984). Improving reading in science.2nd ed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Yager, R. E. (1983). The Importance of Terminology in Teaching K-12 Science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(6), 577-88.
essed 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.
Entries (RSS)