In my experience most developers prefer the agile development method. They work in sprints, present their work at the end of a sprint, lay out the land on what’s working and what isn’t yet, figure out decisions that have to be made, and move on the the next sprint. This waterfal continues until a benchmark has been met, either in time, quality, or quantity. By that time the program should work according to the deliverables defined. Sure, some testsing has been done but actual stress tests and perfomance monitors are done after the fact, when things tend to go terribly wrong. And now I’m only talking about software validation.

It irritates me that when designing and developing software, whether serious games or business apps, software validation is of first and foremost concern. I once had a customer who said his company needs to do something with gamification. When asked to what end he simply answered:”because it will get us headlines in the newspapers”. The user and the effect it has on the user is completely disregarded. Yes, more and more companies employ UX specialists but then don’t know what to do with them so they let them do layout- and graphic design. They need to do user research and testing, map out the user’s needs, not do someone elses job!

In my opinion a game isn’t valid until the entire user experience (design, flow, timing, tech, effect) has been met at the benchmark.

YES, brain games can improve your performance on THAT cognitive task.

However, most people will make the assumption that as your test score improve, you are improving your cognitive skills─ like the ability to focus your attention, process information, and inhibit unwanted responses in a Stroop Test.

The big question is whether or not taking a brain test again and again, and improving one’s score in brain games, indicates a REAL improvement in cognitive skills. We need cognitive skills for success in life. It is all about developing multiple cognitive skills in dynamic real life environment and not just improving cognitive test scores in a lab.

Also, the current genre of brain-training games are very limited in their scope, focus on one or two cognitive skills at a time, lack dynamic integration between cognitive skills, lab testing lacks the real life dynamic environment that demand and challenge multiple cognitive skills, and the test games get repetitious and boring after a short while. It’s like revving your car engine in ‘Neutral’… while sitting in your driveway, going nowhere.

Real cognitive skills development games should have following attributes…

“Dynamically engage, nurture, and develop multiple cognitive skills─ in a progressively complex, multi-tasking, and competitive environment, when playing against the computer or a friend with a clearly defined objective to win while having fun. Such cognitive skills development games should provide for computer based mentoring; and score game results, grade cognitive skills, and monitor progress.”

I practice what I preach, and have launched 5 cognitive skills development games [with the above mentioned attributes] on Google Play Store and Apple App Store. Take a look and tell me what you think…

Cognitive Skill Games | Hours of Fun | Engage, Nurture, and Develop 21 Cognitive Skills Needed for Success in Life | https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rknetstudio.bridge

Hmm, so if I understand Derek correctly, doing maths at school was useful after all

It is hard to generalize the results of maths and english interventions using ‘cognitive ability’ tests. The whole schooling system doesn’t change your cognitive ability that much. But does make you smarter! (I presume..)

Also, be careful not to run into the whole-task / part-task segmentation difference.

Try thinking of the last time you had to teach (or explain) something to someone. Chances are you had to split the task at hand into smaller pieces. This is called ‘task segmentation’. As illustration, I recently moved to Amsterdam, and wanted to laminate part of my new floor. First I had to remove the old flooring, then roll-out the underfloor foaming, then start laying the laminate across one edge, etc. As these are all tasks that can be performed integrally in the authentic situation, this is ‘whole-task segmentation’.
Now in the schooling system, this is really hard to do — the earlier in education, the harder. That’s of course because they can’t be sure what jobs their pupils are going to have to perform, forcing to aim at a generic subset. Some pupils may become military, such as the friendly colleague who sent me this link (thx Jur!), others lawyers, such as my dear sister, or maybe even some serious gaming researchers like Pam and me . In order to prepare for all these different jobs, the tasks have to be segmented using a different approach. Enter schooling systems as we all know them. The tasks are divided orthogonally into clusters of skills that are way more generic, such as maths & grammar.

Regards,
Sam Besselink (TNO, Netherlands)

Thanks so much!

-Pam
p.s. I love the video case study!

1. Miller, D.J. & Robertson, D.P. (2010). Using a games-console in the primary classroom: effects of ‘Brain Training’ programme on computation and self-esteem. British Journal of Educational Technology 41 (2), 242-255.

2. Miller, D.J. & Robertson, D.P. (2011). Educational benefits of using games consoles in a primary classroom: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42 (5), 850-864.

Here is a video case study of what we did in the initila smal scale trial (btw we were asked by the BBC for our research to be featured in their discussion/programme but it was in the proces ofg being publsihed so we couldn’t include it.)

http://bit.ly/HYuZTb

Hopefully you find this of use. @derekrobertson