“It’s Just a Game”
November 2nd, 2006 by trottahe
Continuing in my search for theoretic frameworks for the use of digital games and virtual worlds in education, I am still reading the Gee book, What Video Games Have to Teach Us, mentioned in a previous post. In the introduction, Gee ties three areas of educational research to game studies. Interesting enough, these topics just happen to be of personal interest, having explored them in other contexts at Teachers College. What an amazing “connection”!
- Situated Cognition
This work argues that human learning and thinking is embedded in and situated within the worlds we occupy (i.e. social, cultural, material). - New Literacy Studies
Language today is not the only form of communication. Of particular interest is how learners derive meaning from images, symbols, graphs, diagrams and artifacts. Meaning is derived from context and based again in the practices of the many communities we are a part of. - Connectivism
A body of work based on the premise that humans are powerful pattern makers. Connections are made between pieces of information based on experiences in the world that over time becomes generalized but are still rooted in specific incidents.
I would also add to Gee’s list the role of identity and community in learning as having an impact on the learning process that is occurring in serious games. In future posts, I will look at each one of these areas, in relation to Gee’s book and my experiences in working with students and faculty in virtual worlds.
What I thought was interesting is Gee’s point that schools stress a mastery of knowledge, which is still centered in silos, or domains (such as physics, history, art, or literature), yet none of these facts occurred out of social context. I remember my discussions with faculty regarding the viewpoint of Plato and Aristotle that knowledge is good, in and of itself, yet I would argue, just as Gee does, that facts and principles were created in a certain context and that their meaning is situated in such. It seems unnatural to me that we approach learning in our educational systems the way we do.
Well, in comes the world of video games/virtual worlds and other possibilities suddenly are open to us to reexamine educational practices. Students can experience the world in new ways, form new affiliations and prepare for future learning. Are we ready? Are our students ready?
In a discussion we had with undergraduates participating in our virtual team experience in Second Life this week, we found them to be very “traditional” in their thinking of that learning “should be”. It was difficult for the majority to see the experience as a preparation for what they might experience once they enter the workforce. They saw the experience just as “game”. In contrast, what we saw were students totally engaged for two hours, working together to accomplish a set of tasks, using their computer for “educational purposes”, a rarity in the undergraduate classroom today.
I supposed that one could say that their “patterns” associated with learning are rooted in our tradition of the passive delivery of content … their responses were an excellent example of how patterns come to be established and have a role in how we view new experiences. Hmmmm .. more thoughts later.
All photos shown here were taken by Seton Hall students in their virtual team experience using Second Life this past week.
