A couple of years ago, I had to share my classroom with one of our “roving” teachers, a World History teacher. It was the first time I had had the experience to truly sit back and observe someone else’s pedagogical practice, and it was rather enlightening to me. As I observed this particular teacher (who was a good one, by the way—not the type to sit students in front of a worksheet and then plan football pays all hour) it was interesting to see how he incorporated media into his classroom, particularly the use of video games. Much like the Civilization games described by Squire, this teacher used things such as Axis and Allies and another Roman Empire game, which I can’t think of the name for, in his instruction. At the time, I honestly thought that this was simply a way for Mr. Teacher to get up and play video games in front of his class. (He was the kind who wouldn’t hesitate to tell his students that he’s been up until 4 that morning playing Halo—NOT a good thing in my book, and I tend to be judgmental, so you can see how I could possibly make this kind of assumption.) After reading the articles for this week, I still have my doubts as to the effectiveness of this kind of teaching strategy; however, my hesitations may be for different reasons now.
Okay, as you have probably already deduced, I am not a particular fan of the video game. I think that certain games can be fun (original Nintendo Mario Brothers, Dance Dance Revolution, Rock Band, the Wii Sports games, and a few others) but I tend to lean toward the “worthless waste of time” camp, which again, I know is horribly judgmental and rude. Perhaps it’s because I have seen the negative effects—lack of ambition in anything else, complete lack of social skills, neglected spouses, ruined marriages etc.—that come from addiction to the fake worlds inside of the screen. YET, as I read for this week, I feel that some of what is being discussed as possibility for learning with video games is innovative and hopeful. I think that there truly are possibilities out there, but I think that, as educators, we need to make sure of one thing—that these types of teaching strategies are facilitating learning and aren’t becoming a “filler activity.”
As I read Ito, I was thrown back to elementary school and the days of Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? and Oregon Trail. I remember going to the computer lab, sitting in front of big, clunky monitors, and playing them for hours at a time. I loved it! And yet, now, as an educator, I have to ask, “What was the point?” At least with the spelling games and the word processing car races, I can see the connection to the curriculum. Okay, so Carmen Sandiego does geography, but Oregon Trail? Really? I think I found this same weakness in the discussion of Grand Theft Auto and Squire’s argument for the potential of open-ended sandbox games. Yes, it’s good to have fun, and yes, it’s good to have students engaged because they’re having fun. However, without an objective you may as well turn on Halo, or better yet, Dance Dance Revolution, at least then they’d be getting some exercise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As a somewhat avid gamer (though I generally resist that title, as I see it applying more to people who spend hours playing things like World of Warcraft instead of Mario...), you might be surprised to note that I agree with you in a lot of ways. I don't think that we need to introduce games just for the heck of introducing them, and I also don't think that an insightful discussion of GTA replaces classroom discussion talking about racism in meaningful ways.
When we talk about situated practice, we talk about needing practice that is authentic to the discipline; incorporating Civilization into a social studies curriculum seems authentic; introducing a game like Spore into a science classroom seems authentic. I'm having a hard time seeing how you might authentically incorporate games into an English classroom. It's important that the types of things you use in the classroom are effective and authentic.
Post a Comment