Although video games are more popular with children than school books, because of the identity, agency, control, interaction, low risk of failing etc., one of the major attractions according to me is the unpredictability. Every time one plays the game there is a certain amount of surprise factor involved which twists and turns the game making it more appealing to the players. The same kind of thrill is obtained when one plays soccer or any team sport. But the video games offer a low probability of loosing and even if one loses , it doesn't matter - you can start over with out having to hear from coach.
So one of the major reasons a child might be willing to play video games as opposed to soccer is the thrill of winning without having to do much practice or without having to see failures.
As far as the lateral thinking that video games offer ( according to Gee) - I am not sure if the domain into which the thinking extends laterally is wide and significant at all. One might be thinking about the strategies - but only with in a limited domain. Lets compare a Wii Mario Cart with Algebraic Equations. When you play Mario Cart, there are only limited number of actions that player can perform, but the scenarios that the game simulates could extend to almost infinity.So what a player learns is only limited. Its like giving a student to solve y=mx+c with infinite number of possible combinations of 'm' and 'c'. Imagine giving a student 100 problems with different values of 'm' and 'c' - how much 'learning' is happening here? This is similar to video games. Lateral thinking is more for the game designers than for the players in such a case. I think, schools do not linearly focus on 'goal', unlike what Gee says. If students are enticed with goals and benefits of the goals every step of the way, they would be more willing to work harder than now. Working with Scarlett students, I feel that they are not seeing a 'purpose' in learning.. their purpose of being able to perform important cognitive tasks are not clear to them. Many students seem to have abilities but do not seem to attach those abilities to any value or purpose.
I think if we adapt the video game concept to regular classroom teaching,
-making the learning thrilling,
-setting every day goals that are nearly tanglible and certainly realizable, and
-also showing students the bigger picture of purpose of learning frequently
we can get the students back into the classrooms in real sense.
Shuba, I really appreciate some of the points you raised when comparing school or athletics to video games. In particular, I thought your comment concerning the willingness of a child to play video games over sports is possibly due to potential thrill of winning without having to put in the leg work of practice and perseverance—practice being the focus word here. Before one excels in a sport such as soccer, one must practice, hone his or her skills, and put them to the test. This process can requires blood, sweat, and tears. Video games, one could argue, requires practice as well, but the process is without sweat, endurance, and risk. School, I believe, could replace the word soccer in your comment. School, like soccer, requires effort and there is risk. The question then is, how do we make the classroom environment as interesting and risk-free as video games while instilling within students the values of perseverance and work ethic.
ReplyDeleteJesse: Thanks for the comments. Definitely replacing soccer with school will put things more into context. I mentioned soccer, as it is a more more productive 'game' compared to video game.
DeleteSubha, I see where you're coming from in terms of a game only teaching students a limited number of things. I think this is true for a game like Mario Cart, or just general video games that kids play. However, I've seen some pretty great educational games where this is not true, and the students are constantly learning. What I got from Gee's article is not that all games are educational and teach students, but that the framework of a video game can be used as an educational tool if the right aspects of games are incorporated. This would make learning like "a game", and would hopefully keep the students more engaged.
ReplyDeleteInteresting perspective! I am "pro games" in the classroom; however, I really like how you framed your blog post and the scenario you described with Mario Kart. This is a great example that made your perspective extremely clear to me. Did you ever get the chance to play "Oregon Trail" in school? I loved it when I was a student and, while it may not have taught me everything I needed to know about westward migration of US settlers, expansion efforts, and manifest destiny, it gave me a very basic foundation of the concepts I would later learn - and it was fun, which helped to engage me (and other students) in class. Fast-forward 20 years and here we are at our summer teaching experience. I too agree that many of these students do not see the purpose or goal of being here these four weeks. We explain to them concepts, but I'm not sure we're doing all we can to give them the reason they need to want to learn. I agree that goals are extremely important and will consider this further throughout this next year.
ReplyDeleteSubha,
ReplyDeleteThis statement jumped out at me: "Many students seem to have abilities but do not seem to attach those abilities to any value or purpose."
Spot on! And I agree that while games could potentially help with this, they could also tip students in the other direction. Like any educational tool, it's all about how it's designed and executed. There will never be a "silver bullet," which I think is a good thing; otherwise, why are we here?