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.
