They really were designed for evaluating a game based on engagement. The flow, fiero and fun! I almost want to call them the "chocolate on broccoli" test. I agree that something different is needed if you want to evaluate student learning.
Last week I posted this link to a rubric for evaluating games for learning. These were created as a part of a grad. ed. course on game design. I think they add the learning dimension but could perhaps benefit from some of the flow/fiero thinking here. Maybe we could combine the ideas? Chris
I liked the rubrics. While they aren't complete (for educational purposes), I think that there could be added elements added to the rubric for content and evaluation activities (if any) of said content. I think that if the content is there, and it is engaging, the learners will most likely enjoy learning this way. The big caveat is this: if learners are socialized into a certain mode of learning (i.e. text only), then the game might seem childish or a waste of time. I think that it's important either in game or out-of-game (or both) to have some sort of explanation as to why this resource (game) is used for the task and how learners will benefit from it.
I found most of the categories in the rubrics quite useful, but I would make the following additions to the teacher rubric for planning purposes:
Availability: Online,Online and downloadable,iPad,iPhone Reading Level: elementary 1-3,elementary- 4-6, high school Google Images: available, not available Wikipedia Article: available, not available
I would also suggest creating a second rubric to measure how technology relates to the various learning tasks or objectives that one has for using a specific game. I think that Ruben Puentedura's suggestion of comparing how one would accomplish a learning task using computer technology to how one might be able or not be able to accomplish the same task without the technology could be quite useful.
He suggests the following categorization of what the technology does for the learning task: 1. Substitution Tech [in this case acomputer game] acts as a direct tool substitute, with no functional change 2. Augmentation Tech (computer game] acts as a direct tool substitute, with functional improvement 3.Modification Tech [computer game] allows for significant task redesign 4. Redefinition Tech [in this case a computer game] allows for the creation of new tasks previously inconceivable