After watching our guest speakers the other week, I decided to give World of Warcraft (a multiplayer online game) a try. I have a few friends who are hard-core WoW players, but I fail to see the draw. The graphics are good and the gameplay is easy to pick up, but it definitely did not hold my attention for more than a few minutes. (That might be because I'm more a fan of sports and racing games.) I think that many of the fans of this game would be participating in role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons if computers did not exist. (In fact, those same friends of mine started off with D&D as teenagers.)
That being said, I do see some benefits of playing this game...
Practicing creative problem solving- All games require some degree of problem solving ability, and a game like this offers almost innumerable obstacles to surmount in a framework that provides great motivation for the learner.
Practicing failure- Every learner needs a low risk setting to learn how to deal with failure. Games such as WoW invite players to take risks and fail in order to try again. The concept is the same as in the real world, but the consequences are not as painful. Some learn these lessons through sports or music; others through gaming.
Practicing teamwork and leadership skills- Working with other players is an integral part of the gaming experience, and so it is necessary to learn how to work as a part of a team to accomplish certain goals. And as we saw with one of guest speakers, there is the opportunity to begin learning the responsibilities that come with being a leader. And there is almost immediate feedback on your leadership ability, because it is very easy for your followers to leave you for someone they feel is better.
Learning some hard, real world type lessons- As our guest speaker learned, people are not always honest, and they will often cheat you if you give them a chance. He was able to get his first lesson in a video game; I got mine when a 'friend' stole my savings when I was 6. A valuable lesson, and one that I think that I think is a good one to learn in a game, first (although betrayal is always a bitter pill to swallow).
These were the main benefits I found with the game, but there are a few negatives as well. The violence which is a big draw in these games is a bit disturbing, at least when younger players are involved. Of course, I say that and then I remember that my brother and I played cowboys and indians and had swordfights without the benefit of violent video games to influence us. However I still find the killing and bloodshed a bit troubling. I even have concerns about the violence in my sons' Lego Star Wars games, despite there being no blood or realistic characters.
The addictive nature of the games is also a concern. I know that my sons would play video games for hours every day if given the chance, and we heard from our guests that they have done the same. But I used to practice sports for several hours daily. Is it really that different? I was still addicted to the games, only I was getting exercise; I think the basic premise is the same.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Comment #1...Some thoughts on gaming as a learning tool
Although I have long been a proponent of video games as learning tools and as a more desirable option than most television, I think people are overstating the case for gaming as an academic tool. Both of my children own several Leapfrog toys and video games (for those without kids, these are toys and games that help children master basic reading and arithmetic). I give these tools quite a bit of credit for both of them being competent readers and understanding the rudiments of math at age 3. They also have limited access to the Xbox (when they were 3 and 5, they finished the entire Lego Star Wars franchise), Wii, and kid networking sites like Club Penguin and Webkinz. All of these have taught them valuable skills: dealing with failure positively, working as a team, creative problem solving, thinking quickly under pressure, and how to socialize with others in a strictly circumcribed environment.
These are all skills that should transfer into other spheres without difficulty; however, they also sound familiar. Theses are the same skills that have long been the justification for sports. I learned them as a child playing baseball, soccer, football, or anything else I could convince others to try with me. And they even helped with literacy and math because I wanted to read the newspaper and interpret the stats of my favorite players.
When Williamson, Shaffer, et al, write that "[a] large body of facts that resists out-of-context memorization and rote learning comes easily if learners are immersed in activities and experiences that use these facts for plans, goals, and purposes within a coherent domain of knowledge", they are not telling us anything we don't already know, as most of us try to ground our subjects in things that are relevant to our students, anyway. Role playing, learning activities, and real world experiences have always been weapons in the teacher's arsenal. The delivery system for the arsenal may have become more sophisticated, but the essence is the same: throw it out there and try to convince them they want to catch it.
I would also like to know how video games could help me teach Chaucer or Shakespeare. I suppose a game immersing the player in the Middle Ages would help the student understand the context of the work, but how is that going to help them interpret the language or recognize parody? What I have found most useful about today's technology is the ability for the students to practice with new vocabulary, which aids understanding, and find useful information about the text, quickly. I think it's much more efficient for the student to read about the War of the Roses in oreder to understand the context of Shakespeare's Richard III than it is to spend hours playing a game.
In summation, I believe that video games are effective learning tools for certain kinds of learning: basic literacy and math, social networking, creative problem solving, and vocational learning (including many of the examples in the reading, such as Madison 2200, mentioned by Williamson, Shaffer, et al, flight simulators, and America's Army, a game that simulates army life from basic training through advanced missions).(http://discovermagazine.com/2007/brain/video-games)
But I think we should be careful how much credit we give video games over other methods of learning.
These are all skills that should transfer into other spheres without difficulty; however, they also sound familiar. Theses are the same skills that have long been the justification for sports. I learned them as a child playing baseball, soccer, football, or anything else I could convince others to try with me. And they even helped with literacy and math because I wanted to read the newspaper and interpret the stats of my favorite players.
When Williamson, Shaffer, et al, write that "[a] large body of facts that resists out-of-context memorization and rote learning comes easily if learners are immersed in activities and experiences that use these facts for plans, goals, and purposes within a coherent domain of knowledge", they are not telling us anything we don't already know, as most of us try to ground our subjects in things that are relevant to our students, anyway. Role playing, learning activities, and real world experiences have always been weapons in the teacher's arsenal. The delivery system for the arsenal may have become more sophisticated, but the essence is the same: throw it out there and try to convince them they want to catch it.
I would also like to know how video games could help me teach Chaucer or Shakespeare. I suppose a game immersing the player in the Middle Ages would help the student understand the context of the work, but how is that going to help them interpret the language or recognize parody? What I have found most useful about today's technology is the ability for the students to practice with new vocabulary, which aids understanding, and find useful information about the text, quickly. I think it's much more efficient for the student to read about the War of the Roses in oreder to understand the context of Shakespeare's Richard III than it is to spend hours playing a game.
In summation, I believe that video games are effective learning tools for certain kinds of learning: basic literacy and math, social networking, creative problem solving, and vocational learning (including many of the examples in the reading, such as Madison 2200, mentioned by Williamson, Shaffer, et al, flight simulators, and America's Army, a game that simulates army life from basic training through advanced missions).(http://discovermagazine.com/2007/brain/video-games)
But I think we should be careful how much credit we give video games over other methods of learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)