Reflections on Learning: There must be a better way

I am going to apologize in advance. This paper will be a far more reflective paper than I typically choose to post in regards to recent readings. In large part, this is due to the large amount of meaningful input I received this weekend between readings for this class, the coursework, and Meaningful Play 2010. As a result, I need to create a more casual, letter like format to process these ideas.

This week, I have been reading James Gee and also had the opportunity to attend his keynote and many presentations by researchers and academics influenced by his writings on games and learning.  My first take-away from Gee's work, his presentation, several other Games for Learning based presentations and interactions at the conference is there is a common theme: there must be a better way to teach and learn. This resonated with people I talked to in education or formerly in education that had been drawn to the conference.  



There is a common frustration and disenchantment with the current education of children in the United States that seems to have brought individuals from education and education related fields to the realm of games. Behavior problems rule, children are falling behind, and assessments aren't measuring everything that matters or cannot measure everything that matters.  Our poorest most high need students are being failed. Education is broken, and the TFAer in me could go on with many reasons why that is and many things that could be done, but I won't.  I want to focus on the "better way" that is hidden as games.  Doing this I want to preface, I am not suggesting games as an alternative education.  Good teachers are valuable professionals and mentors in the community that raises a child.  I am suggesting games a supplemental education and a model to test cognitive processes in learning in order to devise better data based instructional practices.

Gee suggests some explanations.  In the classroom, we are putting children in situations that make them “look stupid” (Gee, 2010) when there are ways, games being on of them, that would make our children “look smart” and therefore “be smart”. Of course, the counter that Steinkuehler added to this at Meaningful Play is that, even if we add learning measures, such a well crafted games, that allow children to act and be smart, we still have assessments that will again put them in those awkward situations where they look stupid. Assessments may be something next in line to tackle when discussing games and learning.

There's still much to be considered about Games and Learning. I liked the discussion that games provide this very influential context for good learning: they give people a goal that they are emotionally involved in achieving. Then, through persistence, people learn the skills to achieve this goal.

But there are tools to go along with that we can give them, and this is also discussed by Gee in the reading. The most interesting of these to me are the concepts of: co-design, customize, identity, “just in time” information, and sandboxes. There are other concepts that are interesting to me, but I also have discussed them to death with other teachers as “good teaching is good teaching.”

This co-design aspect: the idea that you, the learner, author your own learning experience is very powerful and likely connected with Self-Determinism. The truth is, who doesn't want to leave their mark on the world, and if you walk in any American classroom, you will find the writing and carving on the desks to prove this. Modern games provide this experience, through many ways, but also through that idea of customizing (making the world or the avatar your own) and identity (taking the perspective of another individual). Now, say, imagine a game for my Anne Frank unit, where students can create their own character, but are randomly assigned a Jewish or non-Jewish identity in World War II. Give them the option of building safe houses and safe rooms. Let them put their mark on history. Isn't that a powerful way to get them invested in the larger issues that could be approached with teacher guidance in that context?

Another interesting idea is “just in time information”. I don't think this concept is used enough in education.  However, digital games show how great it is for scaffolding in problem-solving situations (which life is full of).  We ask students to memorize vast amounts of information, most of which is taking up valuable time and space that could be used for creative problem solving and higher order cognitive skills. We live in a “just in time” society, with the Internet and many reliable (and unreliable) sources at our fingertips. There is great value in just in time information and providing students with it. We as adults use it all of the time.

Let's be honest. When was the last time you recited lines from Hamlet's soliloquy by memory (unless you are me, but I was an English major) or a poem? Do you really remember what year President Garfield was elected into office? Can't you look it up?

That is a little cynical of me, but it is the truth. These facts are memorized for tests and then dismissed because they aren't where the real learning in those disciplines takes place. So why not use some “just in time” information more often in learning systems. We need to be adept with them as adults.

By the way, from memory part of Hamlet's soliloqy is: “To die, to sleep. To sleep perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub. For , in that sleep of death what dreams may yet come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil.” I had an English teacher that made me and all the other students memorize this and other lines. I imagine I am one of the few that decided it was worth keeping in my brain rather than looking it up.

The last area of interest to me was the sandbox, safe and simplified reality with infinite choice (or at least it felt that way). One of the reasons I believe I was an effective learner, was that despite the social repercussions for much of my life I approached school as a Sandbox (or maybe the Science Fair). I enjoy testing things and seeing what works, then iterating—which I admit is a great trait coming into game design. I enjoy playing games where the tutorial is not didactic, but a sandbox (like Ookami and many Zelda games). I am a self directed learner. The truth is, I am not the only one and I think America is failing those students. So give them a sandbox.

So my conclusion is that, certainly, to look at games is to find a better way—not just for teaching and learning within the confines of the game medium, but also as a better way to construct classroom instruction for our students. In our constitution, education is a right not a privilege. However, because our system appeals to only specific types of often competitive learners, many of our best and brightest, which are all of our children, are falling behind or being misjudged. So perhaps it is not so much game designers that need to pay attention to Gee. He is telling us what we already know. It is educators, administrators, policy makers and voters that should be paying attention.

Be ready for more insightful discussions of MP2010.  I need to sleep on it, organize my notes, and reflect.  There will likely be a lovely series of posts full of reflections on the discussions. 

References this week include presentations at Meaningful Play 2010, Jame Gee's book Good Video Games + Good Learning, and Gee's chapter in Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects.