"Good Video Games and Good Learning"
How does Gee's arguments translate into our classroom methodology? How does DV encompass some of his ideas? You may also post any questions or dosagreements you have with the piece.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Matthew Gasquez
For me this piece by Gee basically comes down to the basics of identity and the challenge in creating a productive learning space that allows a student’s identity to flourish. Schools must allow students’ real-world identities to coincide with their curriculum instead of trying to reinvent and mold that identity to fit the curriculum. There has to be a personal connection to the material to make it meaningful, a curriculum that allows for the embodied stories Gee often writes of, or else there is no incentive for a student to actively participate in the deep learning acquisition process, where they move away from the act of ‘playing’ to the act of ‘doing’. DV does what video games do in a lot of ways. It enables the students to find their own meaning with in the curriculum thus making it personal, meaningful and unforgettable. Not to mention fun, and as juvenile as this may sound, shouldn’t learning be fun?
In past works Gee has described discourse as an ‘identity kit’ and I think that it is safe to say that video games are a gateway to secondary discourse and this is what formal education is lacking. Schools do not praise a students individuality, rather they confine a student to strict rules and regulations, into the ‘skill and drill’ learning process, but video games praise new ways of thinking, different paths of achievement, aid in the acquisition of ‘smart tools’ and, as Gee writes, these methods are rewarded (no wonder kids are more interested in video games than school), “As an educator, I realized that this was just the problem our schools face: How do you get someone to learn something long, hard, and complex and yet enjoy it.” The key is to find a balance here; allow a space for secondary discourse and multiple ways of acquiring knowledge (true ‘learning’) and thus enable the growth of projective identities among students.
It is certain that video games do have their own unique way of teaching and gamers can learn from these games. The good games also have some learning applications built within them. I believe that these games have great potential in teaching educators what we can do in our classrooms to motivate students. There are several qualities of games that Gee mentions. One of which I feel is important that can translate into the classroom is Risk Taking. Gamers are not afraid to take risks in games because the consequences are nill. We should create safe atmospheres for students to experiment creatively with the content we provide them with. If they do not fee that there is a significant risk of failure, they will try newer and more creative things. This fits in with DV also where we can encourage students to think creatively and express themselves in new and meaningful ways. Another element Gee states that good games contain is that of Cross Functional Teams whereby players play with other gamers who have different abilities or skills. Such is true in our classrooms as well. Students all have various skill sets. We should explore and exploit these strengths that students have and can consider this in groupwork. Especially in DV, this can be used with students who are writers, artists, communication experts etc... Each skill set contributes something unique to the project and/or collaboration. I also thought the Just in Time and On Demand idea was interesting. We need to be able to give students the information they need, when they need it. As an ELA teacher this can be done as we read texts. When words come up that may be difficult, we can explore their meaning as they come up. When students need information about DV, we can teach them as we actually do it. The information we give students must be relevant and immediate.
Gee also says that good games use well ordered problems. This, I believe, is simply another way to say "scaffolding". Games provide a sequence of solutions for gamers to solve. We must also scaffold learning within the classroom for students to grapple with. As we do this, we can teach students skills and they may build upon them through the use of DV for particular concepts. We can learn about various elements within the curriculum and students can then use DV to demonstrate their level of understanding within that element.
Gee has great ideas about video games and the great question left to us is...how do we use these fundimental ideas in our own classrooms?
When I first looked at this reading, I thought it was going to be very similar to an article I read last fall in some magazine my roommate had. In that article which was posted in the "gaming" magazine that he read, was really just a rant about how the author wanted to see students playing video games in the classroom. But reading into Gee, I saw that his point of view was actually much different. He was really looking for a way to make learning in the classroom as engaging and successful as the learning process in video games. I like his methodical approach to breaking down how the learning process is applied to video game use.
I thought of my past experiences in high school, where I was by no means an engaged student. I have thought about this before, where learning would be much better in the classrooms if it was actually applied to a lived experience. That is one of the things that this DV class brings for me, a learned, lived experience that I can identify with. It is suffice to say that I have learned more in several weeks this summer than I learned in an entire year of my 11th grade math class. This course proves that proper use of DV in our classrooms will solve many of the engagement and applied learning problems that we are faced with in teaching our current curriculum.
I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I remember coming home from school and hearing nearly every day of my childhood, "So, what did you learn today?" from my parents. I really hope that this question is disregarded in the near future, because it does not depict what is happening in a classroom at all. I would always respond with "nothing" because I rarely ever LEARNED one new thing in a single school day. This article states that it is difficult for students to see that their skills will be acquired and developed over time.
I laughed a little when I read Dan's post because my parents would ask me what I learned in school that day, or I would reflect on the day as I was riding the bus home or something and think that I learned nothing. School was nothing like as Gee outlined it...it was never pleasantly frustrating or challenging, it didn't teach me to think critically or systematically, didn't give me skills for problem solving...the list goes on! Everything that Gee outlines is exactly how school should be. Students should be given assignments in which they can react individually, uniquely, and creatively. After all, isn't that the way we can react to various stimulus in life? There are multiple solutions for one problem or situation and kids need to develop the knowledge and skills to react to these issues proactively and productively.
I think this article has a lot of really valuable ideas in it because it doesn't discount the playing of video games which we know is fairly important to students. I think it also encourages us as teachers to think about ways to make our classroom as engaging, entertaining, and challenging as some students find video games to be. I mean, there's a reason why they go at it for hours. I used to play Mario 2 (I think) all the time..the one with the Princess flying on nightingales or something and throwing vegetables at the bad guy in the end or whatever it was...the end MEANT something. There was a sweet ending, or a product of some sort. This is what makes DV such a rewarding thing because you actually have a pretty cool finished product besides some stupid essay you didn't want to write in the first place. DV is also challenging and requires the acquistion of skills and the ability to problem solve. It would be a great asset to any classroom in order to create the energy associated with video gaming.
Alicia Morath
I too like the view Gee took in this article. He did not “bash” video games, nor promote the use of them. I also like the way the article was set up and broke down the different aspects of a video game that make them so appealing to kids. I think we now as teachers need to look at these aspects and figure out how we can best implement them into our teaching to engage our students more. DV is obviously one great way to do this, however, for me, especially in elementary, I cannot only create dv’s for all subjects and topics. We now need to implement these engaging features into our other teaching and grab our students’ interests. Identity for example is very important. Think about your own life, when you can identify with something, not only do you have more invested in the situation but you seem to have a greater understanding of it.
Risk taking is another aspect that I think sometimes needs to be encouraged more often. People learn from their mistakes and sometimes kids need to know that doing something that is a bit challenging will be more rewarding in the end. I agree that video games lower the consequences of failure, but I fear what sense of reality that portrays to children depending on the context of the simulated situation. (If you die in a video game you have more “lives”, if you die in the real world, you do not. This is obviously extreme, but an example to demonstrate my point.) This is also better suited in the classroom, where risks would be experiences personally first-hand, and not through a animated character.
Interaction is an aspect that may be essential to a video game, but I don’t necessarily feel is needs to be in all aspects of learning; at least interaction in the form of communication, where it excludes the need for or opportunity for the use of imagination. If a student wanted to become a video game creator someday, he would need imagination and creativity. I do think that interaction can be done creatively and do agree that textbooks need to be put in contexts of interaction as it connects to life experiences.
The best way to reach your students is to respect them, be honest and fair, but also to find out their interests and make connections. If a student struggles in reading, you try and find literature about topics the student has interest in. Video games are a big part of many children’s lives and what better way to engages students socially in real-life than by following the model or basic components of a video game.
Sarah Rooney
LAI 536
I saw the Gee piece placing an emphasis on the idea of the journey and process of problem-solving over arriving at a finite, finished answer. Certainly the answer and results matter but none of that really matters if the student can't think through the problem and apply critical thinking strategies. Not being a person who has played a ton of video games (some though), I didn't really know where the article was going to wind up when I first started to read. However, I quickly understood that the ideas contained were easily transferable to my limited knowledge of game playing and to my students' vast experiences as being gamers. The idea of games being interactive in the sense that they react and adjust to the player's decisions with new problems seems to be one of the most useful embedded skills that a student could get from this. So often I see students who shut down when confronted with a difficult concept in literature or an unfamiliar vocabulary term because they lack the strategies to problem solve. In a game situation, they get the immediate feedback based on what they know or don't know, or how they attempt to overcome an obstacle. Additionally, I liked the point made by Gee that good games are "safer" for students in that they lower the consequences of failure. How often I've wished that life came with a "save" feature so when a situation didn't go my way I could revert back to a place where things were good! The opportunity for exploration and failure (without it being scary, permanent, or detrimental) is healthy and essential in creating meaning.
DV would seem to foster these same types of affordances, again if done in a way that truly fosters learning and meaning making, as mentioned in the Miller piece. If students are allowed to tailor the curriculum to their preferences as opposed to doing some rote task just for the sake of doing it, they will certainly be more engaged and will take greater meaning from it. Not to mention it would be FUN!
Teri Armstrong
I definatley enjoyed this article by Gee. I loved how he was able to break down the characteristics of video game involvement, and link them to traits that we want our students to possess in the classroom- Genius. The main idea of this article was to prove that when a child is given a task that engages and stimulates them, they will work to accomplish the final goal. So does this mean that playing a video game is a form of learning? I think so! Maybe they are not specifically learning social studies or english, but there are remnants of school-oriented content in video games, as well as a foundation of HOW to learn. I like how Gee made the point in comparison to biology- the students are not necessarily just learning biology- they should be able to 'do' biology. Things that students should 'do' in class, like critical thinking and obtaining mastery, are thing sthat they are working hard to accomplish in video games. ANd for those educators who argue that students are just learning to play a game- not learning the necessary content- isn't the final goal of the video game similar to understanding the 'Big Idea' that would be learned in class?
As Gee points out in the learnin g principles of good games; identity is a principle that a student can use to differentiate, as well as link, different subject areas. Production gives the student a purpose for their work. We need to provide a purpose for our students. Also, challenge and consolidation are key components used in good video games as well as good instruction. when a routine is created, it provides structure and understanding for the students. That could be something so simple as organizing the daily routine of our classrooms. A bellwork assignment for the first 5 minutes of class, the body of the lesson, and the closing for the last 5 minutes. Routine makes a stronger class, and therefore, enhances curriculum. Video games also force kids to re-evaluate the process that they may have developed to obtain the final goal. SOmetimes a new method need to be considered, which incorporates many different skills. And lastly, and most obviously, video games incorpoate the use of cooperation. This is fantastic for classroom activities, but even more iomportant as a life-long lesson.
When I initially saw the title for this Gee reading, I thought I would disagree with his views on video games. I supposed I view some games as mindless activities that children can get so absorbed/obsessed with. I take my younger brother, Alex, for example. He is constantly in front of the xbox, or playstation or whatever... I find myself saying "Why don't you go outside or read a book!" The article made me see video games in a different light, though I still think Alex should read a book and go outside...
If we looked at the reasons that video games engage children, we may find better methods of teaching. I agree that even if it is not an "educational game...[they] are engaging in an activity that is hard, long, and complex." We need our lessons to involve problem solving, increase interaction, make students producers, and give them choice/customization. All of these things, as Gee points out, can be found in video games.
I was happy at the end of the article to see that he was not an advocate for Warcraft, Grandtheft auto or Halo being introduced in English or History class. I was worried he was heading in that direction. I agree with his message, about using and analysing games to improve our pedagogy and methodology.
I read the Gee article with a lot of interest as I have never been a video game player. What fascinated me the most was what he learned when he played his son's game. He tried, failed and tried again until he was successful. Wouldn't that be great if educators could bring that attitude in to the classroom? Video games are teaching students to be good problem solvers and a sense of control over what they're doing. This produces a positive self-esteem that will spill over into the classroom. Incorporating New Literacies in to our classrooms not only keep educators current but will give our students the tools they need to be successful in other content areas.
Diane DeMarco said . . . . . . .
I read the Gee article with a lot of interest as I have never been a video game player. What fascinated me the most was what he learned when he played his son's game. He tried, failed and tried again until he was successful. Wouldn't that be great if educators could bring that attitude in to the classroom? Video games are teaching students to be good problem solvers and a sense of control over what they're doing. This produces a positive self-esteem that will spill over into the classroom. Incorporating New Literacies in to our classrooms not only keep educators current but will give our students the tools they need to be successful in other content areas.
Post a Comment