Videogames, Learning, And Literacy

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a GameZone.com article interviewing Professor James Paul Gee, the author of a new book advocating videogames as a learning tool. According to Gee, "It dawned on me that good games were learning machines... Many of these [game-contained] principles could be used in schools to get kids to learn things like science, but, too often today schools are returning to skill-and-drill and multiple-choice tests that kill deep learning." He goes on to reference "good learning principles" built into games like System Shock 2, Rise of Nations, and Arcanum, and advocates early gaming for learning: "In my view - and I know it is controversial - kids should be playing games from early on, from three years old, say."

Comments

about time someone recognized

[ianmalcm]

video games have always been helpful in the development process. I remember in grade school that all the "smart" kids owned NES or PC games. Theres been a couple studies recently supporting this theory.

unfortunately games are becoming like the movie industry, only the big titles with big budgets make it on store shelves. Hopefully novel gaming wont go the way of the Bruckheimer.

Flight Sims...

[Hanzie]

This reminds me of the F-22 test pilot on the discover channel talking about how the new kids who grew up with video games are unbelivably good at flying planes.

Apparently flying a modern jet requires tracking lots of things at once and the gamer kids are pretty good at it.

I also recall many pilots saying that the number one cause of crashes was pilots believing sensory input over guages, and how easy it was to fool your inner ear. I'd say this would be an advantage to vid game based learners, because gauges are all you have to rely on in a PC game. Further, I don't recall ever seeing a guage in a simulator program of any type that gave inaccurate info, ever.

A prescient pedagogical insight

[ebusinessmedia1]

This is a prescient interview. The market for gaming would explode if game publishers consciously took the time to embed learning scenarios into games.

If this was done in a way that didn't seem pedantic; that didn't detract form the 'fun' or 'challenge' of the game; that permitted the player to branch to new experiences once certain 'pedagogic principles' were mastered; gaming would reach a new plateau - both in terms of cultural influence and sales. Every parent would run out and but a game console, no questions asked.

This is the most compelling way to help people to "fail on the way to mastery".

Imagine that a parent hears that little Suzy will do better in school (or on her SAT's) if she plays games that help her to learn the principles of elementary geometry, grammar, etc. as a part of playing the game, *without her consciously realizing it*. Clever game design could accomplish this. (Why isn't Wolfram Publishing authoring math game?)

Of course, in many cases, conscious awareness that directed learning is taking place could also be permitted, as long as the game's design created stimulating scenarios that compel participation.

This is really just the very beginning for games as learning tools. Years ago, in cognitive science seminars, it became clear that the best 'artificial' way we had to instill learning skills was through simulation. This is still true, and remain so for some time.

Really, games are immersive, simulative, experiences. They will become more immersive, and sophisticated (in terms of simulation) as time goes on, processors get faster, broadband becomes a non-issue, and designers realize that learning can be fun.

The future for this sort of thing is absolutely unlimited. In fact, there's no reason why serious simulations and models of very complex environments won't eventually be brought before very sophisticated learners (politicians, medical professionals, genetic designers, etc.) to help them "think through" potential consequences of their actions.

Frankly, this is the most important pedagogical development in that last 100 years, if not longer. It will have import far into the future.

Children have always learned from games.

[splerdu]

Just about every learning activity that children indulge in is a game. Shape puzzles, lego, etc. Even with animals learning has always been a game.

This makes you wonder why there is so much anti-videogame sentiment, and its sad that its only now that more people are looking seriously toward computer games for child learning.

A friend recently got married and has their first child. Both parents have firmly ingrained computing habits, and hence the child has spent a lot of time in front of a monitor. At age 3, he knew how to operate the window's quicklaunch in order to get to media player (kid loves to watch stuff from Pixar, and they use the PC as a VCD/DVD player). Near age four, he could navigate most of the start menu. And the child isn't a geek either, he runs around much like any other and is a bit of a bully in school actually.

it's no joke!

[lingqi]

I am currently learning Japanese by playing Final Fantasy X-2. Maybe more "increasing the knowledge thereof" than "learning," but I do have the dictionary handy and would pause at instances where I don't understand and look up the word.

It works wonders because

1) it teaches you slang that's sometimes not in textbooks but people use often (must have good dictionary, however)
2) you brush up listening comprehension
3) you can pause the damn thing (try that with TV - well, one without TiVO and the likes)
4) subtitle
5) it provides a mental reference about the words, when I see "furikaeru" I would think to myself - ahh, Yuna says this in her final monologue and such and I can use the game scenario to remind me of the meaning; etc.

So, games can definitely be a learning tool. In fact this the most fun I have had learning yet.

Of course, as a friend puts it, an equally effective way may be to find a - ahem - sex toy who likes to talk during - ahem - activities. But looking up dictionary during such activities may be slightly inconvenient.