Damage Control Mission provides Questers with another ethical dilemma. The doctor has just told them that he needs more time to find the antidote. However, he asks Questers to tell the townspeople that he has found a cure, so they will not worry or lose faith in him. Questers must choose which “truth” to tell, and determine whether the ends justify the means.
Here students are presented with a similar dilemma that they faced in the cemetery mission—confronting the ethics of lying. Because this is a different context, with different characters and different implications for their decisions, students are forced again to consider the nuances involved with deciding when to be truthful. In this way, students are presented with different aspects of the same “idea,” and are given a chance to consider the idea in a different context. Imagine if we created similar opportunities in math, or science—the implications for students’ learning, and their ability to apply what they know to novel contexts, is thrilling.
Is Dr Frank’s monster indeed a monster? He may fit the description if we thought of him in terms of size, for he is indeed huge, enormous looking rather silly as Tina observed him trying to drink mouthfuls using only his hand, from the brook. However, he does not fit the description of monster as in fiend or ogre, for he has not tried to harm anyone since he was created. I believe that we do not have the right to kill or destroy him for that would make us monsters. Instead he should be afforded the right to live amongst us, because it is here that he was created, he is lonely and slightly misunderstood, and he is very knowledgeable.
Frankenstein has long been a popular text in the culture of MIT. It is a book which many young scientists are drawn towards because of the issues it raises about knowledge, about the social responsibilities of scientists, and about the ethical choices one faces when one pursues your work. All of this suggests that MIT students most often identify with the Doctor. Interestingly, Mary Shelly may have intended the book to raise a different set of ethical issues. Written shortly after she had a miscarriage, some feminist scholars argue that the book is about what would happen if men created life in the absence of women. It can be read as a book about what it means to father life in the absence of the maternal. Frankenstein has brought his creature into the world and then abandoned him, unwilling to take ownership of his development or to deal with the consequences of his choice. Here, though, you are asking the player to develop some sympathy and identification with the monster, to see the world through his eyes, and thus to take some imaginative responsibility for what happens to him. This is part of what I experienced in watching the Boris Karloff version as a child. It is hard to watch those classic Universal horror films and not identify with the monster. I am glad to see this element carried over to your game. I can see this providing the basis for good analytic writing which seeks to champion the underdog in the face of conventional wisdom.
The first reason why he should be allowed to live amongst us, afforded the same rights of other citizens, is because he is indeed living and human. He is called a monster because of the way he looks, but has not displayed monstrous tendencies. He is not responsible for the nature of his birth that blame should be solely laid at the feet of Dr Frank. Also according to Tina they were able to joke and talk, but he did not quite get it having not been made with a sense of humour. When Tina told him she could no longer meet with him, he became very angry, but did not harm him. He was also immediately contrite about his behaviour, and told her not be scared he just was not made right.
The second reason why the monster should not be killed or banished from the community is because he has not been allowed amongst us, because Dr Frank believes that because of his hideous appearance we would just hurt of kill him. He is so lonely because Dr Frank has told him that he is not to go out and be amongst people in case this happened. I know this because of his contact with Tina, and because he has even tried to contact me by email telling me that he would just like someone to be his friend.
The third reason has also been learned by Tina during their brief meetings at the brook. She has discovered that he knows so much about the world despite being hidden away from the world. Sadly however, he has not had some of the simplest of our human experiences, i.e. eaten any chocolate.
I would therefore once more urge the people of the town to not harm the monster in anyway or make ourselves guilty of being monsters ourselves.
Questers also learn persuasive writing in this Mission, in the form of an article for the local newspaper. Teachers have control about when the article is “published,” so they may use their own set of standards to watch for quality of writing.
I was very pleased with the experience my students had working with Plague World. This unit helped me teach the students that forethought and elaboration is important in convincing their audience. They also realized that connecting and understanding their audience was also important when writing persuasively. Plague World was the answer to the missing link in my writing curriculum.
While the article is being reviewed by the teacher, Questers are given a task, to write to their friend, “Monster,” and comfort him. Questers are given the chance to reflect on what it means to be human while consoling their friend.
The letter to the left is an example from a Quester at this point in the unit. The Quester demonstrates not only the science and ethical issues in this unit, but also persuasive writing.
I am not clear what the “science issues” are in the child’s letter. It is clear that the child is playing with some deep issues that could easily serve as a basis for a discussion of underlying moral principles and how context specific and “relative” they are or are not. At the same time, it is also clear he is building a major case that the doctor is neither moral nor “trustworthy”. How does this play into the game? Does the child have the opportunity to confront or disown the doctor or will that break the logic of the game world? Can the child stop doing what the doctor asks and still finish the game in a satisfying way? The child is discovering deep moral principles by following the dictates of a doctor who he now sees as morally wrong. The significant question is how does this tension play out with the child and within the game as a whole?
As the Quester's teacher notes
I particularly enjoyed becoming the character in my comments back to the student's responses. Most of the time, I feel the children don't "get" my comments on their work. By becoming the character, I was able to rationalize my suggestions. For example, if I was commenting upon a child's letter back to Mother about their initial experience in Ingolstad, I could relay to them, from Mother's voice, that I didn't understand what they were trying to tell me because they were being vague. I would encourage them to write back and explain using examples from their experience to tell my what was going on. By doing this, the students could see that they were not just regurgitating information for Mother, they actually had at realize that Mother had no idea what was going on because she wasn't there. They had to inform her. A lot of times, my students assume their audience knows what they are trying to say. They don't realize that not everyone has the same experiences as they do. By being the voice of Mother, the Editor, etc. they began to realize that not everyone is as informed as they are, therefore, elaboration is important.
in the excerpt of feedback below, this letter shows an ability for composing a persuasive essay:
You have stated your case and made your points strongly and effectively in this response. You have backed up your opinions with supporting evidence which reinforces your ideas very well! You have touched on human rights for all, another issue that is going to be tested over the next years in our history. thank you for a very well written article that is thought provoking and full of substance.
Keep up the fantastic effort!
Furthermore, as the letter shows, this Quester's developing sense of compassion is evident. He relates the "monster" to a being in his own right, who has been denied a lot of simple pleasures like eating chocolate.
Continuing on the notion of games as ethical playgrounds, here students struggle again with an ethical dilemma. The doctor has just told them that he needs more time to find the antidote. However, he asks players to tell the townspeople that he has found a cure, so they will not worry or lose faith in him. Players must choose which “truth” to tell, and determine whether the ends justify the means. At some level, as designers, we are forcing a sort of ‘ethical entrapment,’ in which the player has to make difficult decisions that require them to question their values. The below submission from a 5th grader in North Carolina shows how we connected the game play into a more traditional academic assignment—one involving writing a persuasive argument. The player further developed this skill previously when they volunteered to the town newspaper, and first had to proceed through a training in writing persuasive columns. Note that by converting the ethical struggle to a more traditional school assignment (and expectations), we run the risk of the player oversimplifying the struggle.
