Getting on Board
Looking at the articles by James Paul Gee and Niall Ferguson, as well as playing MYST III, it seems we might be witnessing a paradigm shift in the model of education. The trends away from simple textual based learning, as well as the mammoth advances in computer science over the past two decades have led to the entrance of video games into the classroom. However, the enthusiasm is far from universal, especially for those who generally do not equate learning with fun.
As Gee offers in the conclusion of “Learning by Design,” “When we think of games, we think of fun. When we think of learning we think of work. Games show us this is wrong.” Gee examines the underlying lessons that many non-educational games can offer its users such as strategic thinking in specific contexts. What he is essentially arguing is that their is a model of learning embedded in games, and that it is often far more effective than ones found in the classroom precisely because its users enjoy using the material and as such get more out of it.
To an extent MYST tries to bridge the gap between tradition and the new in its structure. While there is a certain fetishization of textual forms in the game (in the use of books as the mechanisms of time travel, as well as the high amount of reading required for a video game), most of the game revolves around following visual clues to solve puzzles. While I found the clues too disconnected and obtuse to make the game enjoyable (and thus a useful learning experience), I imagine others could have an immersive, challenging, and pleasant experience. In this sense MYST may meet Gee’s requirements for a useful educational game. What would be interesting would be translating a game like MYST into a historical context. Perhaps something along the lines of Tomb Raider, with players hoping to unlock the secrets of the Valley of the Kings, but based on the work of Howard Carter, rather than some ahistorical model. Then users would be learning both the abstract lessons Gee finds video games are most effective at conveying, as well as the historical content Ferguson thinks can make them educational tools.
What is likely most important to remember in all of this, it is that video games are becoming central to the experiences of children today whether we like it or not. As Niall Ferguson writes of the current school-age generation, “And, as they seek a deeper understanding of the world we live in, they
may not turn first to the bookshelves. They may demand to play—or
rather replay—the great game of history for themselves.” Rather than decrying this as a negative development, it seems more useful to attempt to understand the games they play and think creatively about how games and the their principles can be incorporated into a positive learning experience.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Comments on Tad’s blog.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Thinking about your last paragraph, I had to ask myself about the real nature of the information we learn. If it is printed, then it is so. Do we want our students to merely accept the facts as given? Or would a counter-factual exercise give them a chance to question each fact individually, and prove to themselves how events happened? Frankly, I could see the application of these methods quite clearly in a classroom setting. Pity that wars might seem to be where the money is, because I would love to try this experiment on other facets of history. Could we see in the future a module where the students plug in the information on any scenario, then run the counter-factuals.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Ken,
So, just because kids these days are growing up playing video games we have to change our educational system to match? When kids used to play cowboys and indians outside or play Barbies inside, did that mean we had to change our teaching methods to include role playing in order to reach and engage children in the learning process? Obviously not. Sure it’s smart to creatively expand teaching methods using modern developments. They still need to learn to read and write. They still need to learn to analyze texts not just pictures. And they still need to learn to interact with people, not just with technology. I am not opposed to using clever and challenging games as a part of education, but I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with most traditional methods of teaching. As I wrote on my blog, Gee does not acknowledge that private schools do incorporate many of his principles into non-gaming teaching methods. It’s the public schools that we need to take a look at, but maybe bringing video games into them isn’t the answer.
Laura
April 24th, 2007 at 9:54 am
[...] commented on Ken’s Historiarum about using gaming as a teaching method because video games are a common experience for children [...]
April 24th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Laura,
I can’t say I know the origins of the use of role playing in the classroom, but it does seem to have become a fairly popular and useful form of education. Whether this came directly from imaginative play of children or not, I don’t know, but it seems very possible that it was part of a concerted effort to make learning more engaging and enjoyable. To me it’s not at all obvious that there is no relationship between the two.
Maybe I was unclear, but I am not advocating for a complete removal of traditional pedagogy. Instead, I think they can be buttressed and improved upon by embracing tools that students are familiar with. I think learning should be by design, similar to how we have looked at web development this semester, and as we have learned one of the most important aspects of design is recognizing who your audience is…