Software for Learning | Games and Simulations | Introduction |
SimLife
review #2

/ About SimLife / Learning Activities /
/ previous review / next review /
The Software
Title: SimLife Copyright date: 1992
Publisher: Maxis Cost $59.95
Computer: DOS, Windows, Macintosh Requirements: DOS:IBM 386 & above; 16 MHz; VGA monochrome monitor; 2 MB RAM (4MB recommended) and hard disk required; MS-DOS 3.1 or above; Mouse required

Windows:IBM 386 & above; 20 MHz; VGA monitor; 4 MB RAM & hard disk required; Windows 3.0 or above; Mouse required

Mac:SE and above; Color or Monochrome; 2.5MB RAM for Monochrome; 3MB of RAM for Color; hard disk required; System 6.0.2 or above; System 7.0 compatible
Distribution: Floppy Disks (2)
The Reviewer
Name: Sherri McCarthy-Tucker college: Chandler/Gilbert Community College
Date: March 19, 1995 Discipline(s) taught: Psychology, Honors Forum and English Humanities

Evaluating the Computer Game
STATEMENT RATING
Excellent Good Fair Poor N/A
1. The directions for the program are: x
2. The program's screen design was: x
3. The ease of use of this program was: x
4. Help provided within this program was: x
5. The degree to which the content was up to date was: x
6. The degree to which the program represented the diversity of our student population was: x
7. On the whole, the program was: x

COMMENTS
The program's screen design was difficult to see, very complex, and somewhat dull. It would probably take excessive class time to orient stundets to the program. The help was good within the program except for the 'glitches' and 'loops' in the tutorial. the misinfomration on polygenic relationships / environment interaction regarding trait development is dangerous and inaccurate information. On a whole, the program was poor for instructional use, but o.k. in terms of recreation.

Evaluating the Instructor Materials
STATEMENT RATING
Excellent Good Fair Poor N/A
1. The directions in the instructor guide was: X
2. Learning objectives of the lessons were: X
3. The organization of the lesson was: X
4. The appropriateness of lessons for college level student was: X
5. The assessment/discussion questions at the end of the lessons were: X
6. The completeness of the teaching materials was: X
7. On the whole, the instructor guide was: X

COMMENTS
The directions were hard to follow. The objectives of the lessons were okay for psychology and botany or for junior high science class. The organization of the lessons was complex and cumbersome to follow, poorly written. The assessment/discussion was fair, but not answerable based on the information gained in the program.

Evaluating the Program as a Tool for Teaching and Learning

  1. How would you use this program in your class? Identify a specific application for part of your curriculum (if possible).
    Very difficult for me to use at the college level - perhaps appropriate at middle school level in natural science classes for AP students. Too complex and time consuming to justify the benefit. It could (with lots of instructor prep included) PERHAPS be used in Honors Forum to address the theme of 'Technology & Humanity' - specifically genetic engineering - perspective, but the time required to do this appropriately would make it a prohibitive means of doing so.
  2. How could this program be used for teaching and learning in other disciplines?
    As stated above, it may be useful in botany, in jr. high/high school science classes, and perhaps in physics, with instructor attention, to illustrate scientific methodology and systems theory. It should not be used for these purposes in biology or psychology, however, because of the misinformation regarding the relationship between traits and genes.
  3. How effective was the simulation environment in providing an enhanced learning experience?
    Because of the problems noted above, it was not effective. Also, the 'smite' feature, and some of the comments regarding it in the tutorial, devalues life and promotes violence and a 'disposability mentality'. That, alone, would be enough to prevent me from endorsing it for use in any educational capacity.
  4. What factors might limit the use of this program by instructors?
    Many cited above, namely 1) inaccurate information about relationship between genes and traits/behaviors; 2) very time intensive, what could be imparted much easier in other ways and via other programs; 3) devaluation of plant and animal life inherent in the program design; 4) difficult with tutorial (glitches in the program itself); 5) level of complexity too high; level of information too low - not a developmental match here.
  5. Would your recommend this program for teaching and learning? If yes, why would you recommend this program?
    Generally, no.
  6. If no, why would you not recommend this program?
Additional Comments