Today I read a piece by James Gee on the parallels between gaming and learning, and how we can use gaming to motivate students and increase learning. It was interesting to see all the aspects of gaming parsed out and looked at in tandem with common school practices. Gee comes up with a lot of innovative ways to change classroom instruction to mirror game-play. I thought it was interesting to see the zone of proximal development come into play. Gee comments that people like video games because they are challenging, but not to the point of frustration. He says that kids are motivated to play games because of those challenges (among other reasons). We have been talking a lot about the zone of proximal development in classes so I definitely see the parallels, but I think Gee really oversimplifies it. I think a lot of teachers aim for instruction to be within students' ZPDs, but with all of their students at different levels of mental development and with different experiences/prior knowledge it isn't that simple.
After reading Gee's piece I watched a speech by Jane McGonigal about how gaming can solve the problems of the world. I have so many mixed feelings about this. I think it is an interesting concept, but I'm not sure how an idea like this would play out in real life. After watching the video I had so many questions--I wish she was here so I could ask her more about her theory and how she would implement that.
Do gamers actually think those games that appear more like real-life world problems are fun?
Would you support games moving into the educational setting? Can we implement games like this in our classroom? How? Are there games available for teachers to use (because I obviously couldn't make one myself).
What kind of reaction/response would we get from administrators and parents?
Would kids take the right things away from lessons involving games, or would they focus on the cool special effects and graphics? How would we formulate assessments to make sure that kids are getting things out of it?
After watching the McGonigal clip I went back to the Gee reading. At the very end I found a quote where he says "So the suggestion I leave you with is not 'use games in school'--though that's a good idea..." (pg. 11). This really got me thinking. Is it a good idea? Video games may hold the attention of their players and may promote intrinsic motivation to learn and continue on, but they are also associated with depression and lack of social skills, aren't they? I'm not saying that video games should never be played, nor am I saying that people who play video games are anti-social, depressed people (I do play video games too!), but excessive gaming is not necessarily a good thing. And if we tell kids that they can solve world problems by playing video games, isn't it possible that they interpret it to mean they have permission to game whenever they want? How can we bring the positives from video games into the educational setting and leave the negatives behind? Is that even possible?
In short, I'm not sold on the idea that gamers will save the world's problems...yet.
A really excellent post. I, too, am skeptical. I wonder at the possibility of aligning virtuality and reality. Gee's phrase "rich immersive space" troubles me. I see gamers sinking ever deeper into that imaginary realm and learning to prefer fantasy to reality. I am a phantast, too, but my world is the world of Homer and Dante and Shakespeare, not nazi zombies, machine guns, and epic wins that are far from intellectual.
ReplyDeleteEducational games are already there in schools and the kids love them. I have worked a lot with special ed kids and one of their favorite rewards is actually educational games. There are so many sites out there already it boggles the mind. Off the top of my head, Fastmath is the first one that comes to mind. One day in class I was playing some of the games on Fastmath and I was amazed at how much fun they were. They are challenging but also fun. I knew a guy who owned a company that made board games. I asked him how he knew he was going to make, or buy the rights to any game. His answer was simple, he did not care what the game was, what it did or anything else, except for, was it fun. When things are fun, no matter what they are kids will want to play them. Add into that they are educational and you will probably have a winner. Look it up some time, Fastmath, I was very surprised, you probably would be as well...
ReplyDeleteI think you made a great point about what kind of message will people understand. Play any kind of game = save the world? I agree that that would be a bad message to send. Some games are worse that others, but none, at this point, are actually saving the world. I think tomorrow's discussion will be interesting because of many points you bring up in this post. I have many of the same questions as you.
ReplyDeleteI think we are all riding the slippery slope here. Obviously, with the amount of time gamers voluntarily spend sitting in front of the television, (5.93 million years collectively on World of Warcraft alone), there is an undeniable opportunity to exploit video games for educational use.
ReplyDeleteJust as clearly, we can all see the inherent dangers in promoting a realistic "work" ethic that thrives on the unrealistic principles of low frustation or the guarantee of an "epic win".
The waters of technology are enticing but deceptively deep. It may well be as Jane McGonigal implied, that the only way to gauge the effects that technology will have on the human race is to look at it from an evolutionary perspective. All the more reason to carefully examine each and every step we take.
Great post.