It strikes me that Squire takes a "radical" view that the use of video games in education as not only inevitable but essential, whereas Gee (so far) takes the more "conservative" view that educators have should view video games as an opportunity to understand aspects of play that can be used to improve education.
Squire says "...given that nearly every other medium has been used for learning, it seems self-evident that games eventually will become a part of our education system. (p. 24)"
I find the use of "self-evident" as a red flag that the author may be relying on proof by repeated assertion.
If we are to actually use games and simulations to teach, what are the barriers in your (now or future) professional environment?
My first impression was that cost would be the biggest barrier to using games and simulations to teach, and it probably is so at the current time. But as software improves, the cost of developing games will drop significantly. I think the "last" barrier to using games and simulations to teach will be the developers' imagination.
Squire uses MIT's Supercharged! to show how the best games "place[s] players systems" (emphasis added). The game was successful in teaching the physics of electrostatics. But Squire seems obsessed with the player being immersed withinin the game, and complained that Supercharged "did not include many other aspects of science learning that would be critical for less science-minded populations, such as coming to see, think, act, and be in the world as a physicist might - coming to inhabit the identity of a physicist."
As I read about Supercharged! I came up with the idea for a game called Papertrail which would follow a twenty dollar bill through its life: printed, sent to banks, given to a bank customer, used to buy fast food, given to another customer as change, deposited in a vending machine, collected, deposited, and ultimately destroyed. You could get points based on how many times you are spent. How many points can you get? Game players would learn about the federal reserve system, the banking system, and commerce. I think it's a pretty good idea for a game!
Is it possible that "games and simulations for learning" is simply a fad? How would you imagine the future of these technologies as a part (or not) of formal learning?
I have to answer the question in two parts. As for simulations, they are already being used and will always be used. As for games, they are too pervasive to be ignored. I think short games (5-10 minutes of playtime) will become popular in education, and ultimately a public domain repository of educational games will be made available, but the challenge for educators will be to identify concrete learning objectives and to make sure that the games support those objectives.
On final comment: Squire says "...games and other forms of popular culture could educationally important, raising important equity issues about who has access to such communities (page 23)." This comment reminds me of the question of access to computers and the internet: the "Digital Divide". So what's next, the "Digimon Divide"?
No comments:
Post a Comment