Implicit Bias: Game Brief 9/18/18

So with the response from our peers, we decided to expand upon the second of our three ideas. The idea fit what entity wanted more so than the other ideas while also having the shortest and least costly development. It also has the benefit of showing implicit bias in a scenario that the to-be teachers would be put into in within their careers, having a more practical impact than our other more game-y ideas.

Game Brief:

Genre:

Grading Simulator

Audience:

Graduate teachers performing a course on implicit bias, specifically those looking to see how their own bias affects their grading of students.

Primary Objective:

Show teachers how implicit bias can directly affect grading in the classroom.

It meets the needs of the teachers by showing how their own implicit bias can directly harm or benefit students in a low stakes environment.

We chose this objective because there is a large amount of pre-existing pre-graded material to compare it to which removes our own biases from the equation leaving only the teachers own.

Introduction to Game:

Mechanics: Look at a piece of a paper and grade it on an A-F scale. Only information you get is name and appearance as well as various expressions of students as they pass the paper in.

Afterwards they show a chart of what everyone graded the papers as well as the real grade from online to allow for discussion.
Story: You are a teacher grading papers in a classroom

Look/Feel: Generic/sterile (clean paper, clean desk, clean floor), Quick and easy UI , focus is on the papers and the students

What mechanics in the game are you using to optimize and actualize the objective:

Unlike a similar game (fairplay) this game aims to show the actual effects of implicit bias on grading through the use of discussion in the classroom of results based on pre-graded papers.

Game Control:

Player selects sections in the paper where they think there are issues and then a spot where they can select a grade to give the paper. The mouse is used for selection and picking the grade.

Interface/Information:

  • Things you can see:
    • Snippet of paper and question it was answering
    • Student + Name
    • Grading options
    • “Highlighter” to show issue areas
    • Next button

Main User Mechanics/Actions:

Select: Select sections on papers

Match: Match grades to papers

Levels/Environment:

Environment One is the classroom, specifically the teachers desk

Environment Two is a spreadsheet of grades and papers

Obstacles:

The Paper is the only obstacle as not grading it will prevent you from moving on to the next paper.  

Describe and Explain the unique ways in which your game idea meets the needs of the theme, entity, AND objective:

It shows a direct connection between the teachers implicit bias and grading in the classroom and shows how a teachers bias can directly affect the classroom

Sixty Seconds of Play:

Player receives a paper and student, they grade the paper choosing “problem” areas and a final grade. After grading the set of papers they show all of the grades given by teachers and the “true” grade given online as well as the students associated with papers to allow for discussion

Links:

Production:

Estimated number of Developers: 5

Special Licensing: Access to pre-graded papers

Estimated Length of time for Dev: 2 to 3 months

Estimated Costs: Salaries of developers

Plan for post release: None

 

Group Members:

Myself,

Noah Dartt

Seth Nunley

Chris Reitz

Entry 1: Gamasutra Unified Model 9/3/18

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134842/personality_and_play_styles_a_.php

I thought the Unified Model did well in explaining the personality types.

When reading Bartle’s model i agreed with the sections individually but found myself drawn to both Explorer and Killer, which the model did not explain. As the model was being added to i began to understand why the author was making the Unified Model in the first place, to make an accurate and inclusive model, which he did. I didn’t identify with the entire Keirsey model but using Bartle’s model as an overlay i understood it better and i bet others may have the inverted effect, giving more credence to both models. But the gap between Explorer and Killer, being total opposites was still a concern as i like exploring the mechanics of games in depth but like the intense gameplay and interactions that interest the Killer. It was saved by adding the DGD1 model to fill in the gaps resulting in the accurate classification of Manager for me, which is the median gamer personality for Killer and Explorer. Now comparing that with my Myer Briggs result the accuracy is astonishing, Explorer is classic ENTJ and i suspect the further classification of the -A personality might explain the Killer addition. Even the personality titles of the Myer Briggs and the result of the Unified Model are related as Manager and Commander, being information and strategy based with a strong will and ability/desiring to interact/exert dominance. The descriptions of what games people may prefer based on the personalities was eye-opening, someone i know is most definitely a Participant personality (absolute opposite of Manager) and neither of us like the same games, i am particular to Portal-like games and MMORPGs and they prefer social management games like city skylines and the Sims. The model generalizes large categories to a point where everyone would (With all likely-ness) find one category the resonate with, even if see that determining accurately what games someone likes based on their Model defined personality is improbable as there are many other factors on game preference external to personality.

-This is the results of my Myer Briggs test for reference.

https://www.16personalities.com/entj-personality    ENTJ-A Personality

Imageness.PNG