In Chapter 9, Nielson analyzed the “serious” aspect of games in terms of educational functions and possibilities as well as its challenges. The inherent contradiction of gaming and learning pointed out my Nielson suggests that students tend to confuse the purpose of the activity. This results in negative feedback from the administration point of view and lack in progress for the students. Another problem is the interest level of gaming versus learning. As children, most of their lives are dictated by their guardians; this could entail: sleeping, eating, school, and even who they play with in the neighborhood. Given that, children tries to find things that they can be in control off or be good at it. Video games offer this luxury and that is one of the major reasons why children love it so much. They can be good at it and receive positive feedback from completing a level or even solving a set of math problems.
“Why are we better in games than in real life? We are not as good in reality than in games. We are inspired to collaborate.. etc” Jane McGonigal
This question posed by Jane McGonigal sparked some ideas in me about gaming in societal context. People choose to play games because it could be a means to redeem their mistakes in reality. All of the faults, errors, failed exams, missed problems, etc.. can be redeemed by re-living a new life in games. Games are structured in more of a lenient way when compared to reality. That is how these games have such a huge player base. The information that can be learned in games isn’t petty, if compiled into books, there should be a series for each game. And if you ask players about the game, they can probably educate you with ease. So why is it so easy for players to learn and retain information about games versus traditional education? Some will argue that the information learned from games are easy and requires little or no critical thinking. That could be true for some games but not all. This goes back to the interest level and player control.
If educators can design learning experience as an integral part of life rather than the current schooling system, then, I believe, students will be more interested and engaged in learning. Why? Children will be more interested about learning if they know how it can directly affect their lives. For example, teaching children basic biology about trees and leaves in a classroom setting versus going to a park and teach them how to judge the season by looking at the condition of a tree and its leaves. The purpose of learning it is to judge the season rather than strictly about the biology behind trees. If we teach children the basic application of entry level knowledge in each field of study, then they will spark their own interest and learn more about it. Rather than forcing them the information in one sitting, teach open the door for them and have them walk through it.
Games can be structured in a manner that can achieve this concept. Instead of basing a game around a certain topic, have it based on a curriculum over several different topics. Let the students explore different application of the core materials. Eventually, they will wonder how and why these concepts came to be. Achieving this will eliminate the problems that Nielson suggested: the inherent contradiction of gaming and learning as well as the purpose of gaming.
Question: Do you envision learning as a gaming process in the future? Achievement based?
No comments:
Post a Comment