Computational Sophistication of Games Programmed by Children: A Model for Its Measurement

Computational Sophistication of Games Programmed by Children: A Model for Its Measurement
Jared O'Leary

In this episode I unpack Werner, Denner, Campe, and Torres’ (2020) article titled “Computational sophistication of games programmed by children: A model for its measurement,” which unpacks how the authors updated the game computational sophistical (GCS) model to account for computational learning evident within 39 games development by pairs of middle school children.

Article

Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Torres, D. M. (2020). Computational sophistication of games programmed by children: A model for its measurement. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 20(2), 12:1-12:23.


Abstract

“This article builds on prior work that aims to measure computational learning (CL) during middle school. Since game computational sophistication (GCS) has been used as a proxy for a student’s engagement in CL we build on their model to more completely describe the relationship between different types of building blocks of computer games and GCS. In doing so, we present a single quantitative measurement for GCS. Our model, called GCS 2.0, has face validity for 39 games, each programmed by a pair of middle school children. We choose four of these games, two with high GCS and two with low GCS, and discuss the computational building blocks found in each game. We do this to help the reader better understand our measurement of GCS and its relationship to CL.”


Author Keywords

Computational thinking, student assessment, K-12 education, computational sophistication, computational learning, game programming, pair programming, middle school, assessment, and measurement


My One Sentence Summary

This article unpacks how the authors updated the game computational sophistical (GCS) model to account for computational learning evident within 39 games development by pairs of middle school children.


Some Of My Lingering Questions/Thoughts

  • I'm curious how this model would have differed if the analysis was based on the process rather than the product.

  • How might the model differ if it also accounted for code that was initially include or attempted, but ultimately removed from the final product?

  • How might educators use this model in combination with ipsative assessments?

  • How might this model account for variances in complexity evident across the different patterns and mechanics?

  • How could a model like this account for sophistication evident with the efficiency of code?


Resources/Links Relevant to This Episode



More Content