- What, according to Gee, makes for a good/deep video game? Pick a few of the learning principles he describes that can be found in good video games and summarize the main points he makes about them.
- Do you think it is practical/possible for these principles to be implemented in schools? Why or why not? Do you agree with his argument that the principles of learning behind video games should be implemented in schools? Do you think that video games themselves should also be introduced into school curricula, after reading this piece? Why or why not?
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Questions for Gee's Learning by Design
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In regards to the first question:
ReplyDeleteGee argues that a good video game from a perspective of pedagogy is one that allows the player to quickly and deftly learn the rules and action of the game and actually enjoy the learning process. He argues that good game designers are actually learning theorists who understand the human ability to acquire knowledge and are able to craft a medium that allows for maximal information acquisition from the gamers. He outlines some successful principles of good games. I will give exposition for a few.
Gee places the three pillars of good game design right at the front of the study, beginning with Co-design. Co-design is the principle that the learner actually has a strong hand in creating the game experience from the very beginning of the game; and this is analogous in pedagogy when students are able to be active and strong participants in the learning process. This harkens a little to the principle of Hebbian learning--you actually learn by doing, and if a child in school isn't taking an active role in the creation of the educational experience for themselves, there is diminished results as a consequence of the child not having a hands on learning experience.
Customization is important also in game design as well as pedagogy because if a child/gamer is able to customize the process of information acquisition, the learning process will reward them more than with a cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all mentality. This is important because in current educational pedagogy there is a focus on standardization--probably to the detriment of some learners who are more at home with an unconventional approach.
Finally for this post I will describe the Identity principle: the deepest learning comes from a fully involved learner--and the only way to have one be totally involved in the course material is to have a strong and valuable personal identity with the material. If people do not feel as if they are personally involved and invested in the material, there will be diminished learning. This is the general problem with pedagogy from a lecture standpoint; people need to communicate and share the personal connection with the educational material before they are able to truly and deeply learn.
Gee uses video games as model for education based on the ability of games to induce learning without cognizance of learning. Because games motivate and engage their players, those players are unaware of the learning that they are undergoing. Consequently, Gee examines a possible correlate to education and provides 13 principles found in video games that he suggests ought to be introduced into the classroom. These are broken into three groups. An example of the first group, Empowered Learners, is Co-design, in which video games allow their players to feel like agents and not just passive recipients during game play, allowing them a sense of input into how gameplay occurs. An example of the second category, Problem Solving, is Pleasantly Frustrating, in which gameplay is difficult, but do-able, so that players are challenged but not faced with near impossible tasks. An example from the last category, Understanding, is System Thinking, in which game players are intended to teach players strategy and engage them in ow strategies fit amid the larger whole. All together these principle offer an interesting and valid critique of the classroom and development of literacy in the classroom. While I would not suggest video games ought to be used a teaching tool in the classroom, because I would imagine them to be distracting and not clear nor concise enough to deliver specific education goals, I think these principle lifted from such games offer good potential for the growth of educational practice. In fact some, of these concepts have been previously proposed, like that of Pleasantly Frustrating, almost aligns with the concept of the Zone of Proximity, where a student may need some assistance in that frustrating element to reach a new level of knowledge. I would agree the concepts are valid and would assist in better education practices.
ReplyDeleteGee's underlying argument that video games require constructive, engaged participation from players and are a valuable learning tool is certainly compelling, but I'm skeptical of how such a tool could be properly implemented in a classroom and I take issue with some of his reasoning. I can fairly easily see that video games are an effective way to get people to learn and/or master a skill. In addition, a player is challenged, actively problem solving, strategizing, participating interactively and potentially creatively and all of this is vital to the learning process. But, I wonder within the structure of a game that somebody else has compiled, how much creative license a player truly has? Couldn't a good teacher engage students in a stimulating curriculum and yield similar results to what a video game supposedly offers its players?
ReplyDeleteI don't have evidence to support my opinion, but I would argue that video games promote a shorter attention span. I think video games are largely in control of the players rhythms and tempos and they're frequently fast paced, which causes a number of problems when a person departs from the virtual world. Also, I worry about the possibility of video games controlling a persons awareness, leaving little room for deeper thinking, reflection and critical analysis. There is no doubt that students deserve culturally relevant curriculum and engaging material in the classroom. I'm suspicious of standardized testing, rote learning and dull/unimaginative lesson plans that play out like a formula; however, I'm reluctant and wary to turn to video games as a possible solution to such a problem.
Gee introduces a number of reasons detailing what makes good video games so good. Some that he lists include customization, identity, and well-ordered problems. Customization involves the player to explore different styles of game play to see which one fits him or her. Many games also offer unique identities that allow the player to become attached to it and feel a personal connection to. Along with that good games have well-ordered problems. Each problem should help them learn but it should also help them develop tools that can be applied to later problems.
ReplyDeleteMany of these principles seem practical and while some I feel will take some additional effort. Even Gee doesn’t give concrete examples for each of them but writes in theory. Customizing, co-designing, having well-ordered problems, using pleasantly frustrating challenges, having fish tanks all seem possible to implement. All students have different learning styles and teachers should adapt and customize their lesson plans to them. Having pleasantly frustrating challenges is one of the best ways to have a student develop critical thinking skills and problem solving skills. But also having an initial “fish tank” is a necessary technique because it prevents the student from becoming discouraged too quickly. At the same time, trying to customize for a class of 30 students might be at times difficult with each student being so different in terms of interests, learning curve, etc. How many people will you be customizing too? What happens to the group who does not benefit from the customization?
After reading this piece, I think it is a good idea to experiment with having video games implemented in school curricula. It is clear that many of the principles in video gaming can be applied to schooling. However it should only go as far as not hindering fundamental school curricula and should not substitute homework but complement it. Video games will just be another method to sharpen student’s thinking skills while also helping students have some fun while doing it. The implementation just needs to proceed with caution because the connotation surrounding video games doesn’t exactly link it to school. If it fails at one place, that might be enough to discourage other schools from trying.
Gee uses games as a model for education because it can induce learning unconsciously to players. The reason it does so is because players are unaware of the 13 principles found in games that are not in currently introduced in the classroom. Instead, he suggest that these principles should actually be introduced into classroom because of their effectiveness in video games. There are three groups, empowered learners, problem solvers and understanding. Examples of each of these groups exist in video games. For the first, players feel that they are actully involved in the video games instead of just bystanders. This creates a more engaged players. The second group is through the difficulty of the game forcing the players to develop a skill of problem solving. The games introduces problems that are difficult to solve, but not overly difficult to force players to quit. The last example is introduced through the players actually playing and understanding the strategy behind the game. All of these principles together actually would create a strong development of literacy in a classroom setting. Personally, I would think for some students that using a video game as a teaching tool would be useful, overall I believe it would be a counterproductive tool because not all kids would benefit from the use of this tool. Video games do not offer the tool to get students to certain educated goals. So overall in my opinion, I would agree that these concepts are valid and would assist in educating students, but steps in implementing this tool should be taken with caution.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, I do not know how much of an authority James Paul Gee is on video games. He claims that learning principles applied in video games can be very good at making players feel tested. This is through motivation practices, educational roles the games serve, and the application of these learned principles into academics. Learning principles include active control, design principle, semiotic principle, semiotic domain, meta level thinking, and so forth. Through the act of design, customization, identifying, and distribution of knowledge, Gee believes games will engage students by taking on new identities such as the exploration of future jobs in order to choose a field of interest to study. Problem solving is highly entwined into many of these so-called good educational games, which stimulate teaching through scaffolding a la ZPD in different intensities of skill building. When I was a child, there were numerous video games that were very educational and entertaining, including games like Math Blaster and Reader Rabbit Math Adventures. I do not know the current state of educational games but I believe video games can easily be introduced into school curricula for the better. Video games offer a kind of interactivity that is unsurpassed by anything other than actually doing. And it sure is difficult to make certain subjects fun and engaging when not under the virtual reality of video games.
ReplyDeleteAdditional Questions:
ReplyDelete• What do you think Gee’s argument would be for games that insue violence? Do you think ‘violent’ games influence a gamer’s demeanor? In what way do games inhibit social skills?
• If good learning requires that learners feel like active agents not just passive recipients, how can this be incorporated in school? What would Gee say? Are there any games that you played in school that improved your understanding/increased you knowledge?
• If different styles of learning work for different people, how can/do games address the variety of learning styles?