Assessment Slides from workshop for DevLearn 2012.

1. Tying Assessment to Objective
Concept to be In-Game Activity Assessment of Learning
taught
Negotiation Bartering and purchasing Learners will be required to
skills related to supplies. (for example in a purchase a jetpack and
obtaining the space game, Jetpacks oxygen tank within “the right
best price in might be rare but extremely price range” based on the
the shortest helpful within the game scarcity of the item. Learners
time for a given and, therefore, expensive will be assessed based on
product. and hard to obtain, while starting bid, subsequent bids
oxygen tanks might be and amount of time to
abundant and easy to acquire object.
obtain.)

2. Tying Assessment to Objective
Concept to be In-Game Activity Assessment of Learning
taught

3. Questions to Ask When Designing the
Assessment
• What mix of knowledge, skills, or other
attributes should be assessed?
• What behaviors or performances would reveal
those skills or attributes?
• What tasks or situations should elicit those
behaviors?

4. Assessment of In-Game Success
• Completion Assessment -Did the player complete the level in
the game? How long did it take? How many attempts? Was it
the preferred path?

5. Assessment of In-Game Success
• In-Process Assessment – How did the player choose his or her
actions? Did he or she change their mind? If so, at what
point? What was the motivation behind the choice? Was it
congruent with other decisions or did it appear to be a guess?
– Time required to complete the lesson;
– Number of mistakes made; sequence and frequency
– Number of self-corrections made

6. Assessment of In-Game Success
• Point Assessment -Did the player score enough points to be
considered successful? Did they score them in the right area?
– Number of badges
– Types of badges

7. Under the topic of Troubleshoot, the “Sequence of targets” element was
identified as an observable element that provides evidence of students’ fault-
locating behaviors.
In an assessment of networking skills, an algorithm was written to score the
student’s work product to identify, evaluate, and summarize the quality of the
work product in that aspect.
The log files of students’ command sequences were parsed to determine
search pattern.
Data were examined to see if the student (a) immediately visits the device on
which there is a fault, (b) systematically searches devices, rarely (or never)
returning to a previously-visited network device, or (c) unsystematically “ping-
pongs” among the devices, visiting many again and again.
The different patterns are associated with different levels of competency.
Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M. I., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and
embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning: Flow and grow. In U. Ritterfeld, M. J. Cody, & P.
Vorderer (Eds.), Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects. Philadelphia, PA: Routledge/LEA. 295-321.