Preston WoodwardJuly 19, 2012 1:56 PM
James Gee’s piece on electronic gaming postulates it as superior to books for several reasons. One’s identity is invested, there is interactivity, customization. There are “levels” in this “rich immersive space”. It involves system thinking, exploration, thinking laterally instead of literally. Performance is weighted over competence. The central idea is that it trains the mind to think more dynamically than does the literal, linear, unilateral activity of reading. But the description is analogous to reading itself. One’s identity is in fact quite invested in reading. We identify with characters and the fictional or poetic world becomes our own. Books are systems, and some describe systems. A good text is indeed multileveled. And a novel is nothing if not a rich immersive space. So the case made here is pretty frail.
Reality check: kids that play games all day and night don’t walk out of there brain surgeons. To me, anyway, the games are nothing short of stultifying. On the other hand, Ravi Shankar said in an interview once that his young students are more intelligent these days because of television and electronic media—the great sitar virtuoso who plays ultra traditional ancient ragas. If someone so devoted to the past holds such a futuristic belief, there must be something to it.
Benjamin Franklin said that chess teaches one foresight, circumspection, and caution. Jane McGonigal’s brilliant talk makes an awe-inspiring case for the value of electronic game playing. The implication for education is chiefly to reinforce our concept of zone of proximal development: the mission is perfectly matched to the player’s abilities—unlike life, and school. But her emphasis of inspiring stories goes back to the connection to literature. To my own mind, a child shooting zombies cannot hold a candle to the Odyssey. I just cannot imagine a video game being as rich an intellectual and spiritual experience as the Aeneid or the Faerie Queen.
Niguidula makes a solid case for the usefulness of digital portfolios which make students producers of knowledge rather than mere consumers. The “feedback loop” of the potential ongoing interaction of student and teacher might be a positive innovation. However, I am not sure the multimedia content is necessarily more informative and meaningful. ‘Stuff I thought was cool’ is shallow content.
What must not be lost in all this is literacy. Ravi Shankar’s observation rings true, but I wonder whether kids are indeed smarter, i.e. quicker and more skilled, but less knowledgeable and less intellectual. Less learnèd.
Reality check: kids that play games all day and night don’t walk out of there brain surgeons. To me, anyway, the games are nothing short of stultifying. On the other hand, Ravi Shankar said in an interview once that his young students are more intelligent these days because of television and electronic media—the great sitar virtuoso who plays ultra traditional ancient ragas. If someone so devoted to the past holds such a futuristic belief, there must be something to it.
Benjamin Franklin said that chess teaches one foresight, circumspection, and caution. Jane McGonigal’s brilliant talk makes an awe-inspiring case for the value of electronic game playing. The implication for education is chiefly to reinforce our concept of zone of proximal development: the mission is perfectly matched to the player’s abilities—unlike life, and school. But her emphasis of inspiring stories goes back to the connection to literature. To my own mind, a child shooting zombies cannot hold a candle to the Odyssey. I just cannot imagine a video game being as rich an intellectual and spiritual experience as the Aeneid or the Faerie Queen.
Niguidula makes a solid case for the usefulness of digital portfolios which make students producers of knowledge rather than mere consumers. The “feedback loop” of the potential ongoing interaction of student and teacher might be a positive innovation. However, I am not sure the multimedia content is necessarily more informative and meaningful. ‘Stuff I thought was cool’ is shallow content.
What must not be lost in all this is literacy. Ravi Shankar’s observation rings true, but I wonder whether kids are indeed smarter, i.e. quicker and more skilled, but less knowledgeable and less intellectual. Less learnèd.
