Video Games in Education

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.