I chose to play the game Civilization. Originally conceived in 1991, the game has undergone several reincarnations and the current version is Civilization 5. 

Civilization is a turn-based single- or multiplayer strategy game. The game's objective is to "Build an empire to stand the test of time." Players begin in 4000 BC and attempt to expand and develop their empires through the ages from the ancient era until modern and near-future times, ending in 2040 AD.

The player takes on the role of the ruler of a historic civilization, starting with only one settler unit and one warrior, and attempts to build an empire in competition with numerous other civilizations. 

The player has to make decisions about where to build new cities, which improvements or units to build in each city, which advances in knowledge should be pursued, and how to transform the land surrounding the cities for maximum benefit. From time to time the player's territory may be harassed by barbarians, units with no specific nationality and no named leader.

Before the game begins, the player chooses which historical or current civilization to play. All civilizations are led by a historic figure such as Queen Elizabeth for England, George Washington for the U.S.A., and Mohandas Gandhi for India. These historic figures are not necessarily actual heads of state.

At the start of the game there are no cities anywhere in the world: the player controls one or two settler units, which can be used to found new cities in appropriate sites. Those cities can send out settlers to begin new settlements and thus expand the civilization. Settlers can also alter terrain, build improvements such as mines, farms, and irrigation. They can also build roads to connect cities, and later, railroads.

The game can be won by conquering all other civilizations or by winning the space race by reaching the star system of Alpha Centauri.

Task that the learners can complete	The player can advance by developing  technologies, beginning with pottery and the wheel and ending with nuclear fission and space exploration. Players gain an advantage is their civilization is the first to develop a new technology.
Ability to concentrate on task	The game's responsiveness to the player's choices and the player's ability to customize their playing identity and nature of play make the game varied and retains the player's interest.
Task has clear goals	Does the game have components such as survival, collection of points, gathering of objects and artifacts, solving in puzzles?
Task provides immediate feedback	Most advances give access to new units, city improvements or derivative technologies: for example, the chariot unit becomes available after the wheel is developed, and the granary building becomes available to build after pottery is developed. Since only one tech may be "researched" at any given time, the order in which technologies are chosen makes a considerable difference in the outcome of the game and generally reflects the player's preferred style of gameplay. Players can choose to take an aggressive military stance, or they can attempt to conquer and grow through diplomacy, though they may be subject to attacks by other civilizations. I tried to play the game as a pacifist but when I was continuously attacked by the Incas (despite my attempts at diplomacy) I dismissed ideological concerns and nuked the bastards.
Deep but effortless involvement	While the historical personages are real, the geography and history of the real world is significantly altered. London could share a kingdom with Kuala Lumpur or Los Angeles. Part of the player's goal is to conquer or annex as much territory as possible.
Exercising a sense of control over their actions	The game is highly customizable and offers a variety of actions and choices, resulting in the player having a different experience with every gameplay session.
Concern for self disappears during flow	The player can send out troops to respond to attacks or to attack other civilizations. This can range from skirmishes with primitive barbarians to dropping nuclear bombs on neighboring cities.
Sense of duration of time is altered	The player can advance from 4000 BC to 2040 AD in a few hours' worth of gameplay.

I would highly recommend the game for students interested in history, political science, or geography. While the geography and historical events of the game are not accurate, I believe that this strategy game is valuable for critical thinking and decision making.

Week 7, card and board games.

I chose to play "The Game of Life" and "Apples to Apples." I played Apples to Apples in the classroom with my adult ESL students.

Apples to Apples is a card game which must be played by at least 4 players to be effective. Three is possible, but the game is best when played in a large group. I divided my students into teams of 5 or 6. 

Each player is provided with 7 red cards, each with a noun and that noun's definition. The noun could be anything from "Michael Jackson" to "Shopping Malls" to "Raccoons." There is a stack of green cards, each one with an adjective, such as "Scary," "Ridiculous," or "Attractive." Each player takes turns acting as the "judge." The judge pulls a green card and lays it face-up on the playing surface. The other players must choose from their seven red cards the noun which they feel most appropriately matches the adjective on the green card. They lay their cards face-down so that the origin of each card is secret. The judge shuffles the played red cards and selects the one they feel is the best match to the green card. The player whose card was selected keeps the green card, and the next player steps up for their turn as the judge.

Apples to Apples is a fantastic classroom game, especially for ESL students, as it teaches new vocabulary words, as well as alternate meanings and implications for known vocabulary words. It also enhances spelling and pronunciation skills. Furthermore, the card combinations often result in great hilarity, and when students are having fun they often learn better.

"The Game of Life" is a board game in which the player must roll dice and move their playing piece across a board representing a simulated "life." Random events happen, some good (winning the lottery, buying a house) and some bad (car accidents, stock market crash.) The player must negotiate these events and reach the end of the board, at which time the player presumably retires and collects social security.

I might use "Life" with a classroom of middle school or upper elementary students, and then have them write a short paragraph about how the game went. However, I don't think the element of randomness (dice rolling, etc.) and the limited options give a true explanation of the reality of life. Life isn't as random as the game portrays it to be, and the choices are far broader. I didn't really care for the game, and I recall not much liking it as a child either.

Comparison of two formats: digital vs. non-digital

1. Comparison 1: Game components

Online games can offer certain challenges and stimuli that a physical game may not be able to offer, yet I think I would utilize online games in a very limited capacity in my classroom. In-person interaction is, in my opinion, an important part of the learning experience, and online games cannot always offer that option. However, if multiplayer interaction is built into the game, I could definitely see offering it as part of a group project, since that would eliminate the difficulties of scheduling, which were the bane of my existence during my undergraduate degree.

2. Comparison 2: Interaction

As I am an ESL teacher, I prefer games which offer in-person interaction. This factor preserves the opportunity for conversation, which is a vital part of language development. Online games offer less conversational options. I also find that online games allow for distraction--it's too easy to walk away and do something else. Finally, in-person games cement a bond amongst teammates, as well as increasing motivation to pursue every strategy.

My Kolb score:
AE score: 20
RO: 5
AC: 15
CE:10

Clearly, I am very much an Active Experimenter, with Abstract Conceptualization a close second. While I can generally envision concepts in my head fairly well, I learn much better by doing something a few times. Once I've had some practice, I can get it just right.

My Prensky score was 32. I tend to prefer to take my time to absorb information or to work on projects. I don't like to be rushed, and I like to develop a complete understanding of whatever I might be doing. I'm also not very good at multitasking--I struggle with focus and attention, especially if there are any surrounding distractions!

VAK: Visual learning style. I learn through watching, reading, and illustrations. I often use funny .gifs and pictures in my ESL classroom to illustrate concepts and help my students develop associations.

Bloxorz is a puzzle game in which the player uses the arrow keys to roll and flip a three-dimesional rectangle (which I learned is called a cuboid!) around a flat maze of increasing difficulty, with the ultimate goal of dropping the cuboid through a square hole without dropping it off the side of the maze. I loved playing Bloxorz, and I think I'll come back to it again to keep challenging myself. I played it through several levels--the visual puzzle aspect of the game really appealed to me. I think a game like Bloxorz would be fantastic for a student struggling with quantitative skills and spatial awareness. I imagine it could be very relevant in a geometry class as well. I would recommend this to a classroom of perhaps middle school and up? If it were an iPad game, I would definitely recommend it to schools who give free iPads to their students. It was a lot of fun and challenged me.

Conversely, I found the Map Puzzles game to be less challenging--and frankly I thought they weren't complex enough. The Map Puzzles game had few levels, and asked the player to (depending on the level) click on continents or oceans, type in the abbreviated name of the continent or oceans, or drag and drop the continents onto their outlines correctly. Perhaps it would be sufficiently challenging for a young child, but I think it has very limited application. It took me less than 2 minutes to play a level through. This is a game I would probably use over the course of a week or so, and never again for the remainder of the school year. I certainly wouldn't use it with students below a first or second-grade level. I think it could be much more effective if the information was diversified. While there are multiple "levels" to the game, I honestly felt like each level was essentially a repeat of the next. I thought the game could benefit from a lot more depth, as I really believe a seven-year-old could play through all the levels in 10-15 minutes.