ED TECH 670 Standard - Systems: Understand that we live and work within systems of cause and effect in which actions may have multiple origins and consequences.
Project Description In a team with two other SDSU graduate students, we designed a board game which helps identify some of the key factors in a good job interview. This game was the result of a month of detailed process of defining and redefining concepts of the game to settle upon a unique game objective.
Outcomes This artifact is an example of the systematic development of a project, using the ADDIE model with frequent evaluation, redesign and prototype development methods. We began by analyzing the job search process, and came up with several elements (social networking, resumes, interviews, education). We designed a preliminary game, based on our group discussions. After consulting with the instructor, we realized our game was too complex, and it lacked a clear objective. As a result of this evaluation, we backed away from all of the elements and decided to focus on 5 skills (resume, job search, social networking, company research and the interview). We modified the design to incorporate these ideas and developed a prototype game. We implemented this version with our play testers, and had them evaluate the game. Ultimately, our playtesters found it to be too confusing. As a result of this evaluation, we narrowed the scope to include just one process of the job search, the interview. We redesigned the game around this element, and developed a final revision. This product was a far cry from the initial concept, but reflected an effort from a community of interested participants, and a result of a clear process (ADDIE) in developing an educational game.
Challenges The challenge involved in this project was in generating a variety of input from interested parties, and then to accommodate these suggestions and comments into our existing framework. With each communication, changes were made, and coordination was required to create these changes. We established areas of expertise (artistic, conceptual and administrative) and were able to coordinate our changes using these areas. Play testers were used to identify weaknesses in design, and we would use these suggestions to further refine our game. It was a challenge to keep up with the ideas and changes, and to communicate effectively with all members of the team, even as it became clear that our final design was not what we had originally envisioned.
Growth This was a positive experience in team development. It demonstrated the value of using a process (ADDIE) to develop a product, and was a fine example of modifying and refining within the constraints of a general concept. It reinforced the importance of feedback and evaluation, and the consequences of change within a single product.
Artifact #6
Game Design: Don't Blow that Interview
Don't Blow That Interview
ED TECH 670
Standard - Systems: Understand that we live and work within systems of cause and effect in which actions may have multiple origins and consequences.
Project Description
In a team with two other SDSU graduate students, we designed a board game which helps identify some of the key factors in a good job interview. This game was the result of a month of detailed process of defining and redefining concepts of the game to settle upon a unique game objective.
Outcomes
This artifact is an example of the systematic development of a project, using the ADDIE model with frequent evaluation, redesign and prototype development methods. We began by analyzing the job search process, and came up with several elements (social networking, resumes, interviews, education). We designed a preliminary game, based on our group discussions. After consulting with the instructor, we realized our game was too complex, and it lacked a clear objective. As a result of this evaluation, we backed away from all of the elements and decided to focus on 5 skills (resume, job search, social networking, company research and the interview). We modified the design to incorporate these ideas and developed a prototype game. We implemented this version with our play testers, and had them evaluate the game. Ultimately, our playtesters found it to be too confusing. As a result of this evaluation, we narrowed the scope to include just one process of the job search, the interview. We redesigned the game around this element, and developed a final revision. This product was a far cry from the initial concept, but reflected an effort from a community of interested participants, and a result of a clear process (ADDIE) in developing an educational game.
Challenges
The challenge involved in this project was in generating a variety of input from interested parties, and then to accommodate these suggestions and comments into our existing framework. With each communication, changes were made, and coordination was required to create these changes. We established areas of expertise (artistic, conceptual and administrative) and were able to coordinate our changes using these areas. Play testers were used to identify weaknesses in design, and we would use these suggestions to further refine our game. It was a challenge to keep up with the ideas and changes, and to communicate effectively with all members of the team, even as it became clear that our final design was not what we had originally envisioned.
Growth
This was a positive experience in team development. It demonstrated the value of using a process (ADDIE) to develop a product, and was a fine example of modifying and refining within the constraints of a general concept. It reinforced the importance of feedback and evaluation, and the consequences of change within a single product.
Molenda, M. (2003). In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model. Available at: http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/In%20Search%20of%20Elusive%20ADDIE.pdf. Retrieved Februrary 26, 2010.