We’ll be discussing the game DragonBox Algebra 12+. It’s a game designed for 9 year olds & up where players learn concepts from algebra experientially through puzzles of gradually increasing difficulty.
Before the event, you are encouraged to play DragonBox Algebra 12+ and think about what we can learn from it for designing other educational games. But playing the game is optional and the event is open to everyone. Feel free to invite anyone who you think might be interested in the discussion.
If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for games we should consider in the future, feel free to email me at EducationalGameClub@gmail.com.
Additional Activity Ideas
In addition to playing the game, here are some things that might be interesting to do:
If you like research, consider looking into what researchers have learned from DragonBox Algebra in the 10+ years since it was released. As potential starting points, you could check out the following searches on these research search engines:
Finally, found the link that has the Systematic review of Digital Game-based Learning VS traditional teaching methods in primary and secondary education I was referencing. OSF
My understanding of the paper is that, at worst, DGBL is just as good as traditional teaching. At best, DGBL surpasses traditional teaching in terms of knowledge acquisition and knowledge retention.
Some quick observations from a QA perspective. Any suggestions for possible changes should be taken independent of the problem statement ( the important part ).
The introduction of pips into the iconography might be mistaken for numbers. A spin anim or such when laid down might help indicate they don’t mean anything as a number, but are just random…unless they are not.
The icons that have the interior image “leak” out of the box vs. those that do not is a good way to distinguish two classes of icons. But right now, I don’t see why the bug with wings is all inside the box like the X and unlike the pillbug thingy or the two-headed snake. I would have expected those entirely inside the box to be reserved for things that will be used as variables in more mathy stuff later.
In the early level(s) I played, if I lay down an icon into one side, my only option is to lay down a copy in the other side. Even if I realize I made a mistake and tried to pull it back from where I first put it on the one side, I am not allowed. This punishes failure of following the prescribed process for something that makes no real difference in the end.
Using the (quasi)Day and Night versions of the icons uses one way of declaring opposites, but some students may be more comfortable with mirror-image/swap-left-right. This might be especially relevant with students who have some forms of color blindness.
Adding progression of the background imagery might add a more visceral sense of progression. If each puzzle I get right causes some growth or additional color in the decorative flowers ( Looking at 1-20 ), I would feel more motivated to find out what they look like when I finish that section.
The reminder cracks to drag the same symbol to the other side is a good mechanism.
Obeservation: one real-world relationship that mimics the equivalency between 2 sides of an equation without understanding everything going on in each side is weight. If the 2 sides of a balance scale are evenly weighted, then it “makes more sense” that you would want to add the same to both sides to keep them balanced; even without knowing any numbers for what those weights might be.
Hope this provides some food for thought! I am impressed by what it is doing and how it is going about it.
A research paper about the Algebra Challenges, events where “students in grades K-12 were challenged to solve as many algebraic equations as possible in the educational game DragonBox Adaptive over a week-long period.” Written by researchers at the University of Washington.