Game-based Peer Assessment

My favorite subjects have always been math and science. I have always felt comfortable amongst scientists as we share the same dialogue and external grammar. I am not a historian and have little knowledge of the happenings of the past. Therefore, while reading about David Swan’s game and its semiotic domain, I thought I would not do well. I was highly interested while reading about the procedural rhetoric of his game-based assessment and thought it would be very engaging compared to how my history class was in the past.

Even though this domain is not my area of expertise, I like that this assessment was skill-based and assesses students' historical-critical reading skills throughout the game. In the Game 2.0 post, Swan describes the different paths and how students engage with primary sources and supporting documents. I was still able to play the game regardless of my lack of knowledge of this topic. The assessment did not ask me to recall information, but rather guided me to analyze primary sources, so I was able to navigate through the passages and articulate my own opinion. However, I am sure a person that has more knowledge in this domain would perform better when investigating multiple sources and writing a reflection. I like how the game allows students to see sources of opposite views on a historical problem, allowing them to formulate their own conclusions at the end of the game. The passages provided reinforce the internal/external grammar of this semiotic domain, but I was not able to know if I was evaluating the primary source correctly. I also was not able to see what happens after my second response as the game has not been fully developed yet. Perhaps for future iterations, adding feedback and more direction at the beginning of each passage would be helpful for future users to understand the procedural rhetoric of the game.

Ever since I developed my Assessment Design Checklist (ADC), I have always reviewed assessments in a new light. The broader assessment plan of Swan's game does not provide me with enough information on what happens before or after the assessment, but I will discuss how his current plan aligns with my ADC.

• Game 2.0 assessment clearly states the objective of the game at the beginning (question 1).

• The game focuses on a historical problem where students are required to transfer their knowledge and historical thinking skills to new contexts (question 2).

• The third question of my ADC focuses on including transparent criteria in which students' can self-assess their work. The broader assessment plan does not mention how students will be graded or the criteria they should be aware of (question 3).

• My advice would be to incorporate feedback at the beginning of each passage to provide students with more guidance and that will allow them to reflect on their choices (question 4).

• My advice would be to include multimedia sources so that this game is more aligned with the concepts of the UDL framework (question 5). Perhaps even allow students to choose how they would like to submit a reflection at the end of the game. For example, they can express their position on the historical problem by creating a video or writing a text. I am not aware of how a student will currently complete this assessment, but this will provide multiple means of representation and expression.

Games, as such, are a trending topic in education as they are a powerful motivator for all ages. Check out Game 2.0 for an example on how to implement game-based assessments within your classrooms!