Blog Post 1: Video Games are Good? Get OUT OF HERE!!!

 I choose four different quotes from the article for different reasons.  This article brought about both agreement and disagreement on a variety of subjects.  I had difficulty narrowing down my selections to just four quotes, I actually printed off the article and went through highlighting whenever something touched a nerve, either good or bad.  I decided to try and get a good balance between the two, as I often found myself contemplating both sides of the arguement.  As a former "avid" gamer of the types of games that were discussed in this article I found myself in either total agreement, or morbid denial of some of the conclusions of this paper.  On one hand, I can see the great possibilities that games such as these can lend educators when trying to reach students.  The other hand though, I believe it is a far cry from making the analogy that these games are just like scientists creating a working simulation to create a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis.  I believe that is a stretch.  The very basic models would be the same, but that is where I believe the similiraties end.  A scientists is taking part in an alternate reality in a quest for knowledge, and I believe in most cases will have no trouble distinguishing the two.  A gamer I believe runs the risk of losing sight of the two differences, with the alternate reality crossing the barrier and negatively affecting the real life of said gamer.  I know that I sound as if I should be against these types of games.  I am not, on the contrary, I do agree with the author that they can offer some great rewards in education.  I am merely stating that in order to continue in this direction, a strong set of "ground rules" should be established by the teacher before any gaming is introduced in the classroom.  I also believe that the students must be informed about what is the goal of the game.  Not just the lesson to be learned, but that learning is the main aspiration of the game itself.  Fun may still be had with a game like that, but if the student is informed beforehand, I am confident they will better understand the nature of the game, and come away with a stronger graps on the knowledge that was sought out in playing the game.

"Why Are Video Games Good For Learning" 

James Paul Gee

1."Video games are good for learning (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, & Gee, in press;

Gee 2003, 2005). For me, this claim does not just mean we should use video games for

learning in and out of schools. It also means that we should use the learning principles

built into good video games in and out of schools even if we are not using games."  (Section 1)

2. ". . .video games are a new technology in this same line. They are a new tool

with which to think about the mind and through which we can externalize some of its

functions."  (Section 3, Page7)

3.  ". . .in the massive multiplayer game World ofstags can be killed and skinned (for making leather), but only by characters that

WarCraft

have learned the skinning skill. So a stag is an affordance for skinning for such a player,

but not for one who has no such skill. The large spiders in the game are not an

affordance for skinning for any players, since they cannot be skinned at all."  (Section 3, Page 10)

4.  "Effective thinking is about perceiving the world such that the human actor sees how the world, at a specific time and place (as it is given, but also modifiable), can afford the opportunity for actions
that will lead to a successful accomplishment of the actor’s goals."  (Section 3, Page 10)

 My first quote is from the very beginning of the article.  I choose this portion because I believe it states exactly how gaming should be approached in the classroom.  In my respective area of education, music, games have been used for more than a decade, with the most visible use being in an elementary setting.  Note recognition and musical fact games have been used since my time in grade school.  A large focus of games is lost in the translation.  The small learning principles that are used in any reality based game often go over looked when a game is discussed.  World of Warcraft for example is a game where most people see colorful cartoon characters being played by grown people for hours on end.  What they miss is the social skills, computer skills, teamwork skills, comprehension skills and many others that must be utilized in a game such as WoW.
 My second quote is one that I do not particularly agree.  Gee states that computer games are a new way to think about how the brain works.  I disagree on the simple fact that the types of games discussed are not new, just the medium in which they are being played.  I remember growing up before computer games became widely used.  Dungeons and Dragons is a game similar to World of Warcraft.  The medium in which it is played is different.  The same basic principles apply, with teamwork, and other skills being utilized.  The same brain functions are used, the information that stimulates those functions is just coming through a different medium.  I would agree wthat this medium is revolutionary in the introduction of information being used in games, and can take games that once took days and weeks to complete down to mere hours.  I had several friends that played D&D and they would "quest" together.  In WoW I had friends that would "quest" together.  The difference is, the "quests" in WoW may only take minutes, where in D&D they might play on the same game line, or quest, for a week or more.
 My third quote goes along with my fourth.  Gee is discussing how these games can vary according to the players choices.  Gee says some items in game would not be useful to others, depending on their choice of professions.  This is true.  Gee also states that the world is percieved by humans in different ways, at a specific time and place, an oppurtunity can afford itself to one player that it does not to another.  This is true.  These two quotes offer some of the best examples of what these games could mean to education.  In my area, we are often taught that a certain way in music is not right or wrong, it is music.  In other words, a great quote from my High School Band Director, "One wrong note is just wrong, two wrong notes, and it's JAZZ!!!"  Some people would percieve two wrong notes as also wrong, while others would take it as Jazz, or correct.  These games mimic life like no other medium in that the outcomes of student learning in these games is controlled strictly by the learners.  I may lay out foundations that the game will run on, but the student will be responsible to move through this simulation and gain what knowledge they can, and be successful whether they are a "leatherworker" or some other profession.  What is valuable knowledge for one learner may be worthless to another learner. 

I found a similar article by Jayel Gibson from Education.com that states many of the same ideas that Gee did in his article.  Gibson states that "New information...Memorization...Context and Cognition...and Gender and Ethnic Balance..." are some the advantages that games can bring into education.  Another great feature of this article was the section on the second page about Management games, Role Playing games and Strategy Games.  In each Gibson gives the uses that education could get out of those types of games.

I would like to offer some other thoughts on this subject.  Though I strongly believe that video games, and their like are the future of education, I believe this more so not for their educational value, but because I believe technology will continue to expand into education and the two subjects go hand in hand.  Video games, in my opinion do have great educational value, but I for one will crusade for the use of moderation, in time and use of games in education.  I believe that we as educators must keep in mind that knowledge is the end goal of our journey with students.  Games can make learning fun, but fun must not make we as educators, or our children as students, loose sight of the ultimate goal, learning.