This is where we’ll discuss the opening chapters of James Paul Gee’s book, What Video Games Have To Teach Us about Learning and Literacy.
Gee started his academic career as a linguist who more or less morphed into an education scholar. For what it’s worth, he keeps a blog of sorts here– mostly links to his publications and such. This is kind of “the book” on thinking about video games as something worthy of study. The reading here is actually from the first version of Gee’s book– a new edition is out, and if any of you are reading that (I think my wife is teaching some parts of it in her class), pass along what you see in terms of updates.
I think Gee is a really good and lucid writer, easy to understand– well, with the occasional reference to a dictionary. Just to get things started, here are a couple thoughts:
- The game he talks about in some detail in these opening chapters is Pikmin. I’ve never played it, but it looks kinda cool.
- In his introduction, he points out that he’s not really interested in discussing the content of these games per se– that is, he isn’t discussing video game violence and sexism. I understand his reasons for this, but in a way, it is a bit of a cop-out. I’m curious if this is something he addresses in the new edition of this book, actually.
- I think he’s speaking of video games and literacy in two senses. First, video games themselves represent a “semiotic domain” to be literate about. Second (and to me more interesting), video games are a metaphor for literacy, especially in the way that the best games are these ideal systems that teach the user how to use them through play and experience.
- He talks in a couple of places about a sort of “critical awareness” that’s necessary to understand how we learn about literacy. I think this is an important and often missing piece when it comes to things like video games. In other words, if the player isn’t thinking critically about the game, then I don’t think he is really becoming literate in it. I see this on occasion with my son and some of the games he plays that seem to be more about “mashing buttons” than actually learning anything.
At the end of the first chapter Gee points out that many games stress social interaction. I think this is only growing as more and more people are taking up MMO’s like WoW, in which players pretty much have to rely on forming online friendships to succeed in the game. But all this positive stuff about gaming should come with the warning that Steve suggests in his introduction to the reading. LOTS of folks play video games without really being video game literate. To understand what games can teach requires that the people playing them are actually thinking about games in a critical, strategic manner. However, video games can help an individual learn some critical thinking skills, because some games are really dang hard and to “beat” them you’ve got to invest a large amount of time and thought.
Exactly, Brian– I agree that a lot of people play video games without becoming any more literate. And, this concern is what kept my mother from allowing video games in the house and what keeps me skeptical of them. I am not one of those that believes that a person needs to be learning 24/7, but they shouldn’t be constantly pursuing activities that require the use of a single brain cell. I like how Gee brought in the aspect of critical awareness. Parents and teachers alike need to really look at the activities presented and determine whether the game is beneficial or not and, according to that rating, what the time should be spent playing it.
This ties in to the fact that I, like Dr. Krause, was a little disappointed that Gee didn’t tie in the idea of violence and sexism in video games. I realize that this is a pretty heavy issue and could fill a book on its own, but I think it could be linked as a little blurb with critical awareness, perhaps?
I’ll chime in on Gee’s not talking about violence and sexism in video games, although it’s kind of a sidebar debate in our discussion. In the context of Gee’s book I don’t fault him for not bringing this up. What he’s looking at is how video games are a type of literacy that has potential for teachers to tap into, if they’re open-minded, for the purpose of learning. There is sexism and violence in video games; however, I think Gee’s point is that we as teachers, need to take a serious look at video games as a teaching tool.
I’m with you Brian… I think that to a certain degree, talking about the sexism/violence aparent in many video games might distract from the point that Gee is trying to make. Is it a relevant issue? Yes. But, I think it’s a separate issue. Many books and movies have elements of sexism and violence, but we don’t stop teaching with them just because it’s there. We approach those issues on a case by case basis without letting them detract from what we’re attempting to achieve or overshadowing the potential benefits. If we begin talking about these issues it begins to enter into a realm of morality which is not the point. I don’t think Gee is advocating that we teach Grand Theft Auto. But I think his discussion of the semiotic domains that many role-playing, fantasy games enact is worth not being distracted from.
Relevant issue? Yes… but as Ashley said, save it for another book… maybe one that looks at the social value of gaming rather than the educational value.
I do not think the texts or story lines are really developed alphanumerically as they are pictorially. They need experienced creative/scholarly writers.
Actually, this is something that Moberly talks about a bit….
I wonder about the meta-cognitive aspect of learning through game-playing. I think you’re 100% right that games do teach critical thinking and problem solving skills, as well as improve coordination (more so than ever now with the Wii! I played Wii Tennis for the first time over winter break, and my arm was sore for an entire week afterward!). Perhaps we learn these skills better if we’re aware we’re learning them, but I don’t think this awareness is absolutely necessary. Cloaking learning in play is a very old strategy, and not just for humans. I only seem to be able to come up with cute examples today, but when kittens are chasing bugs, do they know they’re actually training to become ruthless mouse-killers? Nope! They’re just chasing bugs. Sports were originally for training young men to be warriors (maybe the sexism is residual?). When I was a kid playing Super Mario Bros., I definitely wasn’t thinking about problem solving skills–I just wanted to find the secret stuff!
I would like to know how Gee goes on to tell us how we can make school just as challenging and worthwhile for students to learn from as video games. He says he was more than happy to sit down in front of the TV for 8 hours and play his game, but we can’t get kids to stop zoning out in class. What are his 36 principles of learning from video games that we can bring into the classroom?
I understand that because of the non-video gamer group that I am a part of, I am having an even harder time understanding the significance these games play in student’s lives, but I hope the next couple readings help me see more of how this can be important to the ELA classroom.
I think he has a number of examples in this chunk of reading, but I think that one thing that is interesting to think about that’s different about “good game design” versus school learning is that good games tend to be set up so that they get progressively harder to keep it interesting, but they don’t get so hard as to become too difficult (causing people to give up), or too easy (which makes them boring). I think school doesn’t even contemplate thinking in these terms– we’re a lot more about “outcomes” and “benchmarks” and “standards” and stuff.
Also, let me once again suggest to folks– especially the skeptics among you– that it’s worth trying to play one of these games. I don’t mean something like solitaire online; I mean something like Halo or Bioshock or something that is a little more unfamiliar (assuming you can get access to that sort of thing). I really do think that if you try that, you’ll see a little more about Gee’s point here.
I think maybe something like Halo, as Krause suggests, might promote learning if combined with a very active form of learning. From my experience, Halo was fun, but I’m pretty sure that my thinking skills weren’t challenged by the experience by simply playing the game. As Brian says, it requires cognitive awareness to learn something. Maybe video games are somewhat the equivalent of a lecture where students passively intake information. I realize that video games require a response from the player, but, since the responses are automatic and prescribed by the designer, I don’t consider it very active learning. Maybe if, as in a lecture situation, Gee’s suggestion that students be asked to think about their learning – and maybe even apply that learning in another format – would be the point at which students really begin to get something out of the experience of playing video games.
I think that’s right Andrea, and again, I turn to my son for an example. He is learning problem solving and thinking (and literacy?) skills, but I wonder if it would be different and better if he were a little more conscious about what he was doing. I suspect he’d get a better score, to be honest.
I agree with you, Angie. I was sort of interested in the concept, however, so I told my kids today about the video we watched and his idea of tangential learning. It made a good teachable vocabulary moment, at the very least. So, I then asked the kids if they had ever learned ‘tangentially,’ and out of my two accelerated classes(total of 64 kids) about 8 said they had done so and gave me examples.
I tried to get the gist of it from my students, since I too am a nongamer. But I couldn’t get much sense of it, to be honest.
There are several things I like about this text. His review of what it means to read and think. It’s an individual experience. It’s a social experience. And, these two divisions of thought, cognitive science/psychology, and new literary studies have their own ideas and definitions on what reading and thinking is doing. New media and video gaming industry seems to allow us a way to look more closely at these things.
I think that thinking and reading are social acts as well as an individual act. I may sound a little outdated but I think it is necessary to point out again what Gee has said, that we are reading from an individual standpoint that is directly related to our social groups and experiences.
Since we started discussing and reading about video games as a new way to learn, I started to kind of ask what comes first for younger generations, video games or reading?
I think it is video games but then it could be just a chicken or the egg question.
This is a good point, Renee, and once again I am reminded (too late, it would appear!) that I probably should have assigned this earlier in the term because a lot of what Gee is talking here about reading and learning applies a heck of a lot more than just video games. Really, pretty much everything we’re doing here!
I know i am posting late, I didnt realize we had to read this until after the fact and so I didnt read until today. What really struck me was something he said right away “Different people can interpret each type of text differently” but he is not saying that we can do it any way we want to. That is the key here, we cant just dismiss something out of hand because we dont read it like those who read it all the time and know it forwards and backwards do. This is the arguement with video games he is making, and is a good one against those who say they are “bad.” You really have to know what you are talkiing abou to really say what it is about. I find it funny when someone has not read Harry Potter and says its about the occult or witchcraft, same with video games. They do take hours to play and I think, for me, that is why I dont like to play them. But that does not mean I dont see their value and that those that play are not getting anythig from them because they really are. The take hours, days, weeks, years to master them in much the same way it takes us that long sometimes to get an education, learn a lesson, analize a text, and so forth.