In taking a stance on whether video games should be in the
classroom, I am all for it. Now before
moving forward on that I need to define “video game” as the line between what I
might call a video game and a MUVE that we looked at last week is a fine one at
that. Within this, we also have to look
at where the technology is and where it is going.
As they stand now, educational video games (at least for
science) are a bunch of little “gamets” (if you will) that are focused on a
specific piece of content. Since I
started teaching seven years ago, a majority of these fall into a category more
akin to a simulation as discussed by Foti (2007). Over time, many of the simulations have moved
from single purpose activities to multi-purpose activities that often have a
more game like feel, but the truth is that most are basically simulations of
what you could do in class (albeit this may require an extreme amount of time
or money . . . hence the necessity of the simulation). Currently, the best the educational community
has done is begun to collect these games and activities into searchable
libraries to make it easier for the general public to find and use. Most of these games are produced by tech
savvy teachers of as additions to online textbook versions, as opposed to
mainstream video games, which often have a software company behind them.
In science, it is getting easier and easier to find a game
(or simulation) for a most of the major concepts we cover. These are great for getting concepts across
to students while avoiding messy or impossible (due to time or finances)
scenarios. The students seem to enjoy
them and really learn from them. I often
have students coming back later in the day or telling me about how they spent
all night trying to master whatever it is the game covers.
However, as I read Gee’s (2005) research on the learning
principles in good video games, I realized that the simulations I am using,
while good for a lot, are missing many of the factors he described. They do hit some of the points by helping
students explore a situation and allowing for risk-taking (2005), but they are
also lacking in the luster and depth that many mainstream games have.
I believe this shortcoming is why Johnson, Adams, and
Cummins (2012) still put educational video games into a category that is two to
three years out in this past year’s Horizon Report. There is great potential here in terms of
educational value and marketing for a system based educational platform that
would allow for a classroom of student to play video games designed to support
the curriculum. I can also see how the
ability to create a profile and avatar that stays with students throughout the
year would be worthwhile in creating buy-in and effort. However, this also brings us closer to what
current MUVE’s are reaching for. A key
difference is that it would be tailored to the class and content we are
teaching and have many controls for teachers.
Even if the early games were just a more formal aggregation of
simulations, I believe they could prove invaluable to education.
To summarize, I believe that the current simulations
available are a great asset to the classroom and should be used when
appropriate to aid in student learning and increase engagement. I am also excited about what is to come,
although the specific format and abilities of those systems are anyone’s guess
right now. What do you think?
Resources
Foti, S. (2007). Did we leave the future behind? Phi
Delta Kappan, 88(9), 647, 714–715.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi
Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33–37.
Johnson, L.,
Adams, S., and Cummins, M. (2012). NMC
Horizon Report: 2012 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
