What If?
Limited prototype: 2 months, $20
- Research initial topic, write 8 – 10 Claims & 30 – 40 Evidence cards
- Make cards (Claim, Evidence, Topic/Roles, Quality)
- Play-test & rule-change iterations
Full prototype: 6 months, $400
- Research 3 – 5 more topics; for each, write 8 – 10 Claims & 30 – 40 Evidence cards
- Make additional Claim & Evidence cards
- Play-test round 2
- Design & make artwork & manual
(production plan)
Danny's qualifications:
- Taught science (middle- & high-school) for 14 years, wide variety of students
- Ran science fairs
- Used games in classroom throughout career
- Previously worked as manager of software development team
When could you see Versus in action?
Who's behind Versus?
(a very close look at the game's mechanics and dynamics)
First round:
Judge randomly draws a Topic card, chooses role to assign to each contestant team. Each team draws (hiding) a few Claim cards and 5 Evidence cards from that Topic deck. Each team may choose to offer to trade one or more Evidence cards to the opposing team (for equal number), without showing them to the judge. The judge rolls the die to determine which team first plays a Claim; that team deliberates, then plays a Claim card face-up and 1 – 3 Evidence cards face-down. The other team may discard 1 Evidence card & draw a new one; then may choose to play an alternate Claim card; then must play face-down 1 – 3 Evidence cards (but not more than first team put down). The first team tells the judge, from each played Evidence card, any 3 pieces of info (possibly including source); judge may take notes, and ask the team to reveal remaining piece of info from one particular Evidence card. Same process with second team. After listening to both teams’ evidence, the judge must play a Quality card on one Evidence card for each team; then judge may award 1 point for “Role Authentic” to either/both teams, and 2 points for “Convincing” to the more persuasive team (if second team chose to play an alternate Claim, only earns 1 point for “Convincing”). All played Evidence cards are revealed; for each one on which judge played a Quality card: if its quality value matches the one shown on the corresponding Quality card, the judge gets a point. If total of “Convincing” team’s Evidence quality points is lower than total for other team, “Convincing” team gets a bonus point; otherwise, judge gets a bonus point.
Next round:
As in first round, but after judge assigns roles, each team may discard a Claim card and an Evidence card, and draw new ones.
Play continues for 3 or more rounds. Winner is highest total score (the judge or one of the teams).
Versus
Wrap-Up
How does Versus work?
Questions?
a card game for critical thinking
For instance, how would YOU want teenagers to consider the Powtoons in this presentation?
(perhaps with a critical eye?)
References:
- Heather Butler (2012), "Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment Predicts Real-World Outcomes of Critical Thinking"
- Peter Facione (2013), "Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts"
- Lisa Marin & Diane Halpern (2010), "Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains"
- Richard Paul (1984), "Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society"
- Daniel Willingham (2007), "Why Critical Thinking is Hard to Teach"
Thanks for watching and thinking!
Contestant CT benefits:
Why Versus?
Judge benefits:
What are the serious CT benefits for a "contestant" player?
- Practice with providing arguments and explanations
- Practice in understanding multiple viewpoints on an issue
How does the "judge" player benefit from Versus?
- Practice analyzing information: source bias, credibility
- Practice evaluating claims: correlation vs. causation, logical fallacies
General strengths:
Contestant other benefits:
Other general advantages:
- Scalable (3 – 7 players)
- Flexible duration & number of rounds
- Adjustable challenge level: time limit, other parameters
- Replayable with novel combinations
- Expandable with more topic decks
What are some other serious benefits for a "contestant" player?
Unlike direct instruction, promotes general interactive skills:
- communication
- collaboration
- negotiation
What is Versus?
The Case for CT Training for Teenagers
tap spacebar to reveal each card along with audio narration
A role-playing strategy card game for ages 11 - 18 to promote critical thinking in everyday situations
Real-life Relevance
Educational Mandates
Importance of critical thinking in the real world:
2 contesting teams and 1 judge take turns presenting & evaluating evidence to support a claim
Who wants adolescents & young adults to improve their critical thinking skills?
- fewer negative life events in health and finances (Butler)
- better educational outcomes (Paul)
- career success and flexibility (Facione)
- basis for rational and democratic society (Facione)
- teachers
- business leaders
- government and education think-tanks
- state & local school boards
- Common Core
- College Board
(Willingham)
Cards contain familiar claims & supporting detailed evidence with sources; contestants choose details to present to judge
Hits and Misses
In each round, contestants score points by convincing judge of authenticity and validity; judge scores points by appraising quality of presented evidence
CT training stumbles & successes:
Similarities to "Metagame", and NPR's "Wait, Wait ... Don't Tell Me" - "Bluff the Listener Challenge"
- many different approaches tried
- disagreements on definition & measurements
- research stymied by confounding factors
- need better quality research
- BUT ...
- explicit training methods seem to work best
- most gain in same context as training