Basically a pyramid scheme/game for charity. You pay $1 to join. If you get someone else to join, you receive a dollar which you can keep or give to charity.
Third science game in a month. Check out the blog for a bit of controversy. It seems at least one advisor to the game is a proponent of "intelligent design", but I agree it makes sense for the game to focus on cell mechanics. Just because you control the cell, doesn't mean the game is making an argument for an omnipotent creator of all living things.
Found it via an article in Kill Screen magazine "Back to School" (no online version)
Makes a good point. There's a big difference between showing games help students learn, and finding games that match the much more narrow objectives of a class.
It's also a higher level of learning that's difficult to quantify. Student A and B take History 101. Student A is given a book on US History after 1870. Gets test on same topic. If he read the book, does pretty well. Student B plays a history game, explains outcome, and compares with actual historical events. Certainly more impressive, but if given the standard 101 exam, would he do better? I think games are likely to get the short end of the stick with most standardized assessments.
Basically moves games to the cloud. This could be a critical step towards wider distribution of games on campus. Eliminates need for special high end hardware and is subscription based, meaning cheap price for a wide selection and only occasional use.