When I started reading the articles this week about gaming the first thing I thought about was how much I miss playing The Oregon Trail.
Okay so I missed traveling in my covered wagon across the US, forging rivers, and trading gun powder to fix my broken wheel axle all in the hopes to get my family to Oregon in tact, but in all seriousness, I cannot for the life of me, 10 years later, tell you what I learned from that game and why we even played it in school. All I remember is that I had a lot of fun playing it. After reading Good Video Games and Good Learning (Gee, 2005), many of the learning principles that are discussed seem to explain why I was so into playing the Oregon trail. Some of the ones that I think really played into my experience playing a video game when I was younger are identity, interaction, risk taking, agency, and challenge.
I think Gee brings up some valid points about why video games can work well as teaching tools, but part of me wonders if I had so much fun playing The Oregon Trail, not because of the fun activities (as well as learning principles that most likely I was unaware of at the time, but I'm sure played a part) that I got to do in the game, but because I didn't have access to the game, let alone a computer at home. So this brings me to my first question, since kids have a lot more access to technology outside of the classroom, especially with games that are not so "educational", are the video games still as motivating as they used to be? Do kids still want to play "educational" video games at school when they can just go home and play "uneducational" video games at home?
The Quest Atlantis (QA) article gave me mixed emotions about using video gaming in the classroom. I think what the developers of this software have created is really quite a great piece of technology. Let me start with why I really enjoyed reading about QA. I think after all the articles we have read, video-games are the technology that I buy into the most so far. After being in a classroom with students all last year, I can tell you that video-games are definitely a part of their everyday lives. I even bonded quite well with a student after he found out that I knew what Call of Duty was and had actually played it (apparently teachers are supposed to sit at home twiddling their thumbs until it's time to go to school again.. haha) Anyway, I have to agree with Barab et al that using video games as a teaching technology can be engaging to a generation that is so heavily involved with technology. I think they put a lot of thought and effort into making a game that related to the real-world, where kids can be in charge of what their next action is going to be, and also requires reflection and assessing content knowledge. Where I felt a little cautious about using something like this in the classroom would be my fear to be known as "the teacher who sits my students in front of a computer all day." This might seem like an over-reaction, because as the authors point out, QA does not necessarily "teach" students because it requires the teacher to support students while they are doing the quests along with reviewing student work, but I still feel that with the rise of technology in the home, parents might be opposed to a teacher using this because of the amount of video game playing done outside of school. Another concern I had was when thinking about QA being it's own "world" and the need to be QA literate. As a teacher being around QA all day, it's only natural that over a short period of time I would be comfortable talking about QA, but what about parents/guardians of students using QA? Would they feel unable to help a child who uses QA?
Overall, I think video games could be highly beneficial in a classroom since obviously they are part of many students' everyday lives. I just hope they are used rather than abused.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's interesting that the fear of many parents is that videogames are too successful, are too good, and enchant their children for too many waking (and what should be sleeping) hours. It would be neat to see what would be lost and what would be gained if we tried to foster educational experiences and learning attitudes (such as computational thinking) through the medium of boardgames instead of or in addition to videogames.
ReplyDeleteBoardgames in many ways do not exhibit all of James Gee's learning principles per se, but they do offer a non-online non-computerized collaborative scenario guided by rules and win states and challenges to be learned and overcome. It would be interesting then to take a topic, say statistics or literature or computational thinking, and to think of 5-10 big ideas in each of those subjects and think of any way to craft a boardgame to addess, or have players experientially play through, some of those big ideas having to learn them in the process of playing and winning.
just a thought...that gets around sticking kids in front of computers all day. perhaps that's how the boardgames will be marketed to overworried parents. hmmmm.
I've found truly interesting that you had the experience of playing video games while in school. That, and being an educator, gives you a whole different perspective. It made me rethink my point of view about vide games in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteFor me video games in the classroom, just like any other piece of technology, are subjected, both to the way it is introduced in the classroom by the teacher, and the way students decide to use it and interpret it. In that sense, video games alone can't make a difference, and certainly not every video game. It needs to be the "right tool" in the "right way".
After reading your post I think that amongst all the factors for a successful integration of video games in the classroom, it's also worth noticing what you are saying: video games are already part of kids' lives. Video games should be introduced considering the kids' context too, their interests and previous experience.
You asked about parents of students using QA, and whether they would feel unable to help their children.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to that, I can say that I was the parent of two daughters who, like you, used "Oregon Trail" at school... and I was totally oblivious to the fact that they were even using this video game at the time-- until it came up in a conversation about a year ago, when my daughters (now 28 and 23) and I were discussing the differences in attending schools pre- and post- the introduction of computers to the classroom. In the intervening years (between the days of "Oregon Trail" and now) they helped me to learn how to use the Internet. And, these days, they both play World of Warcraft... but I don't... I play an actual guitar !) .
You asked - "since kids have a lot more access to technology outside of the classroom, especially with games that are not so "educational", are the video games still as motivating as they used to be? Do kids still want to play "educational" video games at school when they can just go home and play "uneducational" video games at home?"
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to think that they will still go for the technology, not necessarily because it's cool, but because that's the way life is now. Look at all the people who walk around all day with their smart phones in their hands. They're afraid to miss a thing. Doing things involving technology has become (dare I produce an oxymoron?) "natural". You still have to watch out for dorky video games (Squire, 2005) because video game connoissers are really sophisticated in what they expect. You might need to provide some choices, too.
It is clear that not all video games are created equal.