I’ve only played one computer game: Heroes of Might and Magic. To build my army and buy the castle I wanted, I needed large amounts of minerals. I remember most of the game I would hit refresh over and over again so that I could replenish my ore and sulfur mines. Most of the people I know (including my students) who regularly play video games are men and boys. I don’t have a hypothesis for why this is the case.
I’m curious though, about how Gee’s work on video games and learning might relate to boys’ academic performance and engagement. There is a lot of talk in education right now about girls surpassing boys (in K-12 at least). I wonder how this fits into the conversation, or could be applied to what’s been deemed by many as a big problem.
My experience with video games is limited, but Gee’s explanation of “active learning” and “critical learning” in semiotic domains gave me a new perspective on what and how I’ve learned as I get older and my scope of experience gets a little wider.
Gee’s descriptions convinced me that some video games could make literary concepts more visible for students. I can understand how it would be easier to see the conventions of various video game genres than the conventions of a film or a novel. If you have to participate in a first person shooter game, for example, it’s hard to miss that your character is just part of your arm. Asking a student to explain the possible effects of first person perspective in a novel is trickier.
Gee’s “Explicit Information On-Demand and Just-in-Time Principle” made me think about how important pacing is in a lesson. One of the more difficult parts of lesson planning is figuring out when and how to present new information, and how much new material to present at one time. I liked Gee’s succinct take on this balancing act in his chapter on telling and doing.
“If you have to participate in a first person shooter game, for example, it’s hard to miss that your character is just part of your arm. Asking a student to explain the possible effects of first person perspective in a novel is trickier.” This quote made me think back to–I can’t remember the author’s name–that (terrible) article where a teacher discussed how her frat-boy students refused, at first, to read a story about a homosexual. I don’t remember her mentioning it, but I assume it was in first person; if reading it didn’t involve being the homosexual, but looking at the homosexual (3rd person) would it have been different?
Short Note: I think there is a societal link between videogames and boys / men. Our society fails young men in a very profound way that no one talks about (the silence, of course, is a large part of the problem). I’ll propose briefly (which, I think, harkens back to my post) that the availability of a definite identity is especially alluring to young men. I don’t think boys struggle with “who am I” so much as they suffer from the inability to struggle–the absence of their own agency.
Shifting gears, as am I happy to let Rob’s comment speak for itself, I want to link your post to ‘fun.’ Connecting your idea of reaching a lacking population, with “when we find ways to approach learning that capitalize on learners’ interests, we can make lessons more immediate, meaningful and, yes, fun.” We know, as instructors, the more modes of learning the better–lecture, one-on-one peer reviews, small groups, etc. Taken a step further, modes beyond the traditional academic pedagogy. It just seems both your ideas create a very nice marriage, and perhaps, get at the heart of Gee’s desired learners (students who don’t want too).
I think by nature boys/men tend to be more competitive than girls. Maybe that is why they tend to be more drawn to video games than girls/women – wanting to overcome and win! What if we made learning more competitive? Do you think our male students would be more engaged in learning?