Play Games to Win Rice for Hungry People? So says BBCnews.
Today on BBC news, I read an article about a word game that donates rice to the United Nations World Food Program when you play (and "win"). It's touted as "learn vocab while feeding people." For ever word definition you get correct the site donates 10 grains of rice and you can earn as much as you want/can. It's supported by advertising but a creation of Poverty.com and also has ties to the One Campaign . I played it and earned 1000 grains of rice (don't I sound philanthropic?). The problems I see with the game, especially as "learning vocab" have to do with the difficulty level and also with using words in context. As an ESL instructor I never have just given vocab words for students to know. There's no "learning" involved, only memorization. In addition, some of the "definitions" require a large vocabulary. Sometimes I felt a little stupid for not knowing the word OR some of the definition words. Many of them I "guessed" correctly because of my (limited) knowledge of roots, prefixes, suffixes, etc.
All that negative critique aside, if this is a true program (I'm always a skeptic), it's an easy way to feel like I can contribute to a solution for a global problem. No rice is lost for a wrong answer so you can't really "lose." I also am (more) impressed by the companies who participate as advertisers (Apple being one of them). Finally, I think this is part of an interesting new trend in fund-raising. Activists, fund-raisers, and the like are tapping into the money vein in consumerist culture to raise awareness and funds for certain causes. And I've been captured by this technique. For example, I bought a red iPod because some of the proceeds go to Product Red . But I'm still not sure what I think about the message of "buy yourself something cool so you can help fight AIDS." Seems counterintuitive. But maybe not. Any thoughts?
And along similar lines...
Yesterday BBC news had this article about a new U.N. game which wants students (in particular) to understand what life would be like as a refugee. It's called Against All Odds (no, not the Phil Collins song for all you old folks)--which interestingly is also the name of a WWII game , I discovered--and has 3 levels to complete. I played this one too, and while it has some "problems" (everyone seems white, for example, and the makers aren't shy about pushing certain politics) I think it's an effective game. The first part of the first level asks you/the player to renounce a number of freedoms that Americans/Westerners believe to be important. If you disagree with the police you get hit and blood splatters on your paper. I wanted to disagree (and boldly take the hits) but I couldn't progress through the game without agreeing to things that are against my politics/beliefs. In another section I couldn't decide quickly enough about what to take with me when I flee and so was captured by military police and carted away. I was surprised by how anxious I felt playing that section a second and third time. I gave up when I couldn't successfully escape the city. Yikes. I still wonder, though, if games such as these are effective beyond raising awareness. And is raising awareness "enough?" That might be an interesting longitudinal study....anyone need a dissertation? Ha.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7088447.stm
http://www.freerice.com/index.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7087870.stm
http://www.playagainstallodds.com/