Would Socrates play Video Games?
Will video games someday replace books in classrooms?
Marco Visscher seems to think so in his article Reading, Writing and Video Gaming
I agree with Visscher that video games can inspire creative problem solving. The trial and error exploration found in gaming can help develop sound research skills. Yet these skills are neatly contained within the game’s framework. Interpreting that framework is what I find most promising for education.
I’m very skeptical about using “educational” games in an ELA classroom. For example, F. Scott Fitzgerald or Nathanial Hawthorne didn’t write their novels for the English classroom. Why should video game developers have to? A sense of artistic expression is lost when a text is specifically designed for the classroom. My future job as an English teacher is to get students to read and write critically about texts that are important to them and/or to our society. If a game is designed to be educational and is used primarily in a classroom setting, who will it be important too in the real world?
Visscher also addresses the standard arguments against gaming: they promote anti-social behavior, violent behavior, and are easy. There are now many articles that have shown these complaints to be groundless. Yet I commonly hear these unjustified accusations. First, reading a book is just as anti-social as playing video games. Second, no conclusive evidence has connected video game violence with real violence, and not all games are violent or sexually explicit. Finally, kids do not play video games because they are easy. More likely it is because good video games are challenging and meaningful. A good video game design uses an appropriate learning curve (i.e. the player is initially required to learn the game’s frame-work then apply it to more and more complex objectives). Just as English teachers traditionally critique the structure/organization of a novel, a video game’s frame-work can be critiqued. Visscher is right, video games need to be evaluated. Like attending a class discussion or a book club, evaluating a text with others improves analytic skills.
Marco Visscher seems to think so in his article Reading, Writing and Video Gaming
I agree with Visscher that video games can inspire creative problem solving. The trial and error exploration found in gaming can help develop sound research skills. Yet these skills are neatly contained within the game’s framework. Interpreting that framework is what I find most promising for education.
I’m very skeptical about using “educational” games in an ELA classroom. For example, F. Scott Fitzgerald or Nathanial Hawthorne didn’t write their novels for the English classroom. Why should video game developers have to? A sense of artistic expression is lost when a text is specifically designed for the classroom. My future job as an English teacher is to get students to read and write critically about texts that are important to them and/or to our society. If a game is designed to be educational and is used primarily in a classroom setting, who will it be important too in the real world?
Visscher also addresses the standard arguments against gaming: they promote anti-social behavior, violent behavior, and are easy. There are now many articles that have shown these complaints to be groundless. Yet I commonly hear these unjustified accusations. First, reading a book is just as anti-social as playing video games. Second, no conclusive evidence has connected video game violence with real violence, and not all games are violent or sexually explicit. Finally, kids do not play video games because they are easy. More likely it is because good video games are challenging and meaningful. A good video game design uses an appropriate learning curve (i.e. the player is initially required to learn the game’s frame-work then apply it to more and more complex objectives). Just as English teachers traditionally critique the structure/organization of a novel, a video game’s frame-work can be critiqued. Visscher is right, video games need to be evaluated. Like attending a class discussion or a book club, evaluating a text with others improves analytic skills.
Matt
2 comments:
In a few years all of this talk about video games as legitimate texts for critique will seem quaint. That's already happening with graphic novels which have gone mainstream. I always enjoy reading your posts Matt. KES
Socrates would totally play Minesweeper.
I think you should make a distinction between video games as art or texts, and video games that are made to teach some concept or skill. The latter category is what I think of when we talk about “educational video games,” although I can imagine a place for both types in the classroom as the medium evolves.
The kind of video game I am thinking about for my project would focus on developing and utilizing writing skills. So you could say that I’ve compromised my artistic expression, but that would be missing the point. It would be like criticizing our iLife book for its terrible plot and characterization.
But Chrissy, you have a good point about students being possibly turned off by video games that are too focused on education. That’s why I’m going to try to make a game that can stand on its own as an entertaining experience. Easier said than done, right?
Of course, I’m going to have to talk to Dr. Reid to see if any of my ideas are feasible. And Matt, if I end up doing this, I will need to call upon your expertise. First, can you answer a couple of questions for me? What is it you like about video games? I mean, what qualities does a really good game have? And could you list some examples of games you've enjoyed? I remember you mentioned “Oregon Trail” in class— an excellent example of a game that would be fun even if you excised its educational content.
Thanks.
-James
Post a Comment