Thursday, July 19, 2012

Gamers can save the world?

James Paul Gee's article, Good Video Games and Good Learning and Jane McGonigal's TED talk really didn't surprise me.  As some of you know, I live with my boyfriend who is a dental student at the University of Michigan.  What most don't know is that he is also a gamer.  He doesn't play World of Warcraft, but he does play games like Call of Duty or Tom Clancy's something something, (I try to learn the names of these games, and I apologize if my lack of title knowledge insults anyone).  He is a really intelligent, probably one of the smartest people I know and I think a lot of it has to deal with video games.  He has played since he was really young, his play time has decreased significantly in comparison to when he was in high school, but when he does play he always finishes in first place on his team by a wide gap of points.  Beyond gaming though, he always amazes me with his ability to strategize, collaborate, trouble shoot, and think critically to reach a specific objective.  Now, I'm not saying that the only reason why he is intelligent is because of video games.  But what I am suggesting is that video games have helped him become more aware of these skills, and have allowed him to practice and refine them.  I'm sure on a metacognitive level, that he realizes that he transfers the skills he learns in video games to reality, because we've talked about it.    

Based off of what we read in Willingham (2009), gamers essentially practice the skills that Gee mentioned to the point of automaticity, especially if they play for as many hours as McGonigal (2010) suggests.  And that's the whole point of McGonigal's talk right?  That we need to use video gamers as a resource to solve our world's problems.  We've seen something like this in movies before, where the gamers or computer techs are the ones who can save the world or ruin it, they're usually the ones who are still capable to function during a nationwide power outage/crisis, etc (I'm pretty much referencing Live Free or Die Hard).  This idea isn't far out there --- it's definitely attainable... right?  

This is where I think one important thing comes into play here: level of difficulty.  In Willingham (2009), we all learned that humans are natural problem solvers.  We love solving problems, our reward is that little release of dopamine ( I can't even imagine the amount that gets released once a gamer accomplishes an epic win).  But, there is one stipulation, the problem cannot be too hard.  Once a problem gets so difficult our brains shuts off, we loose our motivation, and we walk away.  That's why, as Gee mentioned, that video games are appealing when a player can stop and save their progress and return to it later.  But the problems we're facing on a worldwide level are extremely difficult! Are the global issues that we are facing too difficult for us to solve?

The other side of these things is the design aspect.  So much time and research is put into the production of a video game.  I can hardly imagine writing a lesson that has content that balances all of Gee's themes: identity, interaction, production, risk taking, customization, agency, well-order problems, challenge and consolidation, “Just in Time” and “On Demand”, situated meanings,  pleasantly frustrating, system thinking, explore, think laterally, rethink goals, smart tools and distributed knowledge, cross-functional teams, performance before competence.  With these things in mind, a video game is carefully crafted (some more than others).  The key point is crafted --- we did not ensure that our worldwide problems had the proper balance between all these things.  How can gamers solve huge issues if they seem insolvable from more than just he difficulty perspective?


And lastly, the biggest thing for me is that video game creators know the objective they want their players to reach, much like a teacher does with their lesson, but if one person can't solve such a global issue, how can we turn it into a game? [added after I wrote this in a comment]

The benefit here: as teachers, we can definitely utilize the knowledge we have about video games and what goes into them in order to create engaging unit plans.  I'm just excited to see how we can do that, and what aspects of technology we can use to accomplish it. 
         

7 comments:

  1. You've made some really good points here, Chelsea. I think we have a pre-conceived notion of what a "gamer" is but in reality, we can't put a label on who a gamer is and what characteristics they have. It's evolved beyond the image of a frail looking guy in his parent's basement who never sees the light of day.

    The difference between video games and lessons plans/lesson plan construction is huge. Enormous. Like you said, they have some of the same elements, but there's no way to ensure a direct route from point A to B in education, like there often is in video games.

    I'm really interested in learning more about the types of video games McGongal mentioned her TED talks. They seem to stretch the mind to levels considered more acceptable in education and at least with social studies, you can argue they're applicable. Like you said, I'd like to find the key to tying in the elements that make video games enjoyable to education.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abby,
      I too wanted to learn more about McGonigal's games and found her website (http://janemcgonigal.com/meet-me/)! It's really interesting and I really like what she says. But like you I am still not really "sold" on the idea in its entirety.

      Also, like you said lesson planning is so much more difficult!! I do think we are learning about a lot of ways to try to get those important principles within our lessons, but the application part is tricky. It's all about trial and error I assume. I think getting from point A to B in a lesson often involves stopping at points C, D, H, J, K, etc. I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling this way!

      Delete
  2. Really an excellent posting. For me the most weighty thought is what if we cannot solve a problem. What if we run up against that brick wall. This is where fantasy and reality part. I loved your description of your boyfriend's "ability to strategize, collaborate, trouble shoot, and think critically to reach a specific objective." You really sum up the author's point about the skills gaming fosters. I always let my daughter win at fish or Monopoly, though I shouldn't. Las Vegas lets us win just enough to keep us coming back for more exploitation and self-destruction (which is F.Y.I. why I *never* gamble). But the fates are in the business of cutting. I am not coddled with ZPD in real life, beyond the artificial environment, the virtual reality of school or World of Warcraft. Video games are escapism--which is fine--but many of us out here in the gritty, unkind, unforgiving, pitiless real world: got no time for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Preston,
      You mention some really important aspects: ZPD & TIME & GAME OBJECTIVE
      There is a great possibility that many global issues are out of people's ZPD's. I like how you call it the "gritty, unkind, unforgiving, pitiless real world" because in many respects that is true. Not every real world issue results in an epic win, instead a lot end in failure. Of course we learn from that, but there is no "restart" button in reality.
      Time is also a pressing matter. It seems like there is never enough time to complete all our readings/tasks asked of us in school, never enough time spent with family and friends, never enough time to teach, never enough time to simply enjoy a beautiful day... The list is quite endless.
      Lastly, you made me recognize that there are games out there that are designed for purely profitable/selfish purposes. But you seem to have an advantage, you've realized it! I still sit at the blackjack tables, knowing when the odds are typically against me --- especially when the dealer has that ten showing --- but yet I still hit or stay. They get my money, but sometimes I do win theirs... sometimes.
      Regardless, thank you for your comment. I was being serious in class when I thanked you because your response really made me think further/deeper about my post.

      Delete
  3. Chelsea, I liked the way you made connections to the Willingham readings on difficulty level and our addiction of solving "Goldilocks problems", not too hard, not too easy, but provide adequate satisfaction when successful. My brother is a serious gamer (both standard strategy board games as well as a slew of online games including some of this Tom Clancy shenanigans and Call of Duty you are referring to (yeah I have trouble keeping up too...). He too is an incredibly great strategic methodical thinker and problem-solver. Though we like to claim that video games tend to isolate humans and cause us to interact with screens more than people, there is a true personal and social element here we might be missing. There are gamers who also choose to play strategy board games (physical boards) remotely (via skype) with friends who live all over the country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Colleen,
      You bring up a really good point, board games count too! My boyfriend and I are addicted to trivia games, we love trivial pursuit, we even DVR Jeopardy!, and we play pretty much anything. We have "family game nights" all the time. The physical board games are a big deal. I've never played it, but Risk is one of those. After all, they did precede technology.

      Delete
  4. Yes!

    I loved this idea of using the qualities that video games possess to teach in the classroom! Each video game ( I am not a player but plan on it!) has a purpose for the player- also as a teacher we have a purpose! The fact that they learn to automaticity is great! If these were skills useful in the real world- this is a great learning experience. I plan to somehow use this in the classroom-its on my list!

    ReplyDelete