App review by Galen McQuillen, Common Sense Education | Updated December 2015
Phoenix Protocol
Get it now
  • Download from App Store

Phoenix Protocol

Explore digital logic, sci-fi circuits with appealing puzzler

Get it now
  • Download from App Store
Learning rating
Editorial review by Common Sense Education
Community rating
Not yet reviewed Write a review
Privacy rating
Not yet rated Expert evaluation by Common Sense
Grades
6–12 This grade range is based on learning appropriateness and doesn't take into account privacy. It's determined by Common Sense Education, not the product's publisher.
Subjects & Skills
Math, Science, Critical Thinking
Great for
Game-Based Learning
Price:  Free Amplify bundles start at $7 per student.
Platforms:  iPad
See how we rate and review

Take a look inside

7 images
Players meet the witty robotic assistant and dragonfly-class spaceship before attempting any puzzles.
All concepts are introduced with a quick tutorial.
Simple circles and squares represent the ones and zeros of binary logic.
Levels are fairly straightforward to start with but have multiple possible solutions.
The levels are presented as various systems on the marooned spacecraft, all in need of repair.
The robotic assistant's interjections add plenty of humor to the learning experience.
By the final level, puzzles are complex, requiring intricate solutions and plenty of trial and error.

Pros: Boolean logic becomes approachable and mesmerizing; multiple solutions encourage design thinking and engineering-style problem solving.

Cons: Finicky controls and a too-loose connection to computer-science goals may frustrate users.

Bottom Line: A super fun way to introduce fundamental electrical-engineering and computer-science concepts, and a great problem-solving game all on its own.

How Can I Teach with This Tool?

In a unit on the fundamentals of computer science, electrical engineering, discrete math, or symbolic logic, Phoenix Protocol would fit right in as a discovery-flavored advance organizer or as some extra at-home practice. If used for these specific learning goals, teachers should work to explicitly make the connections between the game's abstract circles and squares and the very concrete one/zero, true/false world or to engage students in discussion and debate to make these connections themselves.

The game could also make for great general problem-solving and design-thinking practice in almost any class or as supplemental practice for learners who struggle with binary numbers as they're traditionally taught.

Continue reading Show less
Standards:

In Phoenix Protocol, players must repair a ship marooned in deep space by making connections on a grid of flowing circles and squares using binary logic gates to transform input patterns into multiple outputs. The game introduces the concepts of links, splits, NOT gates, AND gates, and OR gates and simplifies binary numbers to brightly colored circles and squares. Solving each level of eight puzzles repairs part of the ship and unlocks more complex tasks, all on the same five-by-five grid.

The interface is all drag-and-drop in a crisply designed, pulsing, flashing, science-fiction wonderland with a peppy techno-music soundtrack. A kooky, irreverent robot assistant (quite reminiscent of Portal's iconic GLaDOS) adds hilarious encouragement and helpful hints and tutorials along the way.

Phoenix protocol uses a trial-and-error discovery learning approach that works extremely well for teaching otherwise tricky logical concepts. The possibility of multiple solutions for each puzzle encourages design thinking and engineering habits of mind, while gradual introduction of increasingly complex concepts and good progression through more difficult levels provides great scaffolding for the properties of boolean functions.

There aren't any ones or zeros, nor any mention of circuits, electronics, or discrete math -- and that's both this game's biggest strength and biggest weakness. By reinterpreting the content as shape puzzles, it makes the content extremely accessible, but it's at the cost of outside transfer. Making the jump to electrical engineering and computer science will be tricky. Teacher context would add a lot: Some gradual introduction to more common representations would make that transition a lot smoother.

Overall Rating
Engagement Would it motivate students and hold their interest? Is it visually appealing? Would it inspire teachers to try something new or change their instruction?

Addictive logic puzzle gameplay makes boolean logic and circuit design approachable and extremely fun; fresh graphics, a flashy sci-fi theme, and a hilarious Portal-inspired robot assistant will keep kids coming back for more.

Pedagogy Does the tool help teachers promote a more student-centered experience? Will students gain conceptual understanding or think critically? Does it deepen teachers’ pedagogical thinking?

Learners pick up OR, AND, and NOT gates intuitively through discovery with trial-and-error gameplay, but there's no explicit connection to digital logic; without outside help, learners may not see what, exactly, they're learning about.

Support Can students and teachers get assistance when they need it? Is it created with people of different abilities and backgrounds in mind? Is learning reinforced and extended beyond the digital experience?

Since this is intended as part of a STEM curriculum package, support will mostly come through classroom intervention, but in-game tutorials and outside student/teacher forums are available to provide some out-of-class help.

Common Sense reviewer
Galen McQuillen Researcher
See how we rate and review

Key Standards Supported

Engineering Design

  • 3-5-ETS1-1

    Define a simple design problem reflecting a need or a want that includes specified criteria for success and constraints on materials, time, or cost.

  • 3-5-ETS1-2

    Generate and compare multiple possible solutions to a problem based on how well each is likely to meet the criteria and constraints of the problem.

  • 3-5-ETS1-3

    Plan and carry out fair tests in which variables are controlled and failure points are considered to identify aspects of a model or prototype that can be improved.

  • K-2-ETS1-1

    Ask questions, make observations, and gather information about a situation people want to change to define a simple problem that can be solved through the development of a new or improved object or tool.

  • K-2-ETS1-2

    Develop a simple sketch, drawing, or physical model to illustrate how the shape of an object helps it function as needed to solve a given problem.

  • K-2-ETS1-3

    Analyze data from tests of two objects designed to solve the same problem to compare the strengths and weaknesses of how each performs.

  • HS-ETS1-4

    Use a computer simulation to model the impact of proposed solutions to a complex real-world problem with numerous criteria and constraints on interactions within and between systems relevant to the problem.

  • MS-ETS1-1

    Define the criteria and constraints of a design problem with sufficient precision to ensure a successful solution, taking into account relevant scientific principles and potential impacts on people and the natural environment that may limit possible solutions.

  • MS-ETS1-2

    Evaluate competing design solutions using a systematic process to determine how well they meet the criteria and constraints of the problem.

  • MS-ETS1-3

    Analyze data from tests to determine similarities and differences among several design solutions to identify the best characteristics of each that can be combined into a new solution to better meet the criteria for success.

  • MS-ETS1-4

    Develop a model to generate data for iterative testing and modification of a proposed object, tool, or process such that an optimal design can be achieved.

Back to top

Community Rating

No one has reviewed this tool yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.

Add your rating

Privacy Rating

This tool has not yet been rated by our privacy team. Learn more about our privacy ratings

Explore Our Favorite Tools