Recent posts for David Williamson Shaffer
Visit to Singapore
I just had the pleasure of visiting colleagues at the Learning Sciences Laboratory at the National Institute of Education in Singapore. There is some really interesting work going on there.
My host was Yam San Chee, who among other projects is working on a game called Statecraft X. The game is built around a Civilization-like simulation model, but the twist is that his team has developed the clever idea of setting one fictional world within another to support the reflection-on-action that turns play in the game into understanding of the world outside the game.
On teaching
I recently had occasion to write a few paragraphs reflecting on my approach to teaching–by which I mean, in this case, my own teaching that I do as a professor rather than the teaching I study more formally as an academic.
I thought I’d share a some of those thoughts for those who might be interested….
FAQ when talking about games
A colleague at the Macarthur Foundation is collecting “frequently asked questions” about games and learning, and asked me for the top questions I get asked when I talk about games–as well as the answers I (more or less) usually give.
Here’s what I sent her:
1. Aren’t a lot of computer games violent and bad for kids?
Well, yes, there are a lot of bad games out there, just as there are a lot of bad books out there. And there are some good games that aren’t appropriate for young kids.
To Kill a Mockingbird is my favorite book of all time, but I don’t read it with my 7 year old.
The more important question, it seems to me, is to look at what makes games good, and how we can help children learn to choose good games and play them well.
2. What should I do as a parent or teacher about computer games?
Good parenting and good teaching don’t simply mean turning kids loose in a media jungle. Wise parents and good teachers need to do become educated about games and engage with their children. They need to help their children choose appropriate games.
Playing games with children is one of the best ways to do that, and what parent wouldn’t want to do things with their kids?
At the very least talking with them about the games–what works and what doesn’t, what is interesting about the game, what they are learning, what the strategies are–is an important part of helping kids play games thoughtfully and reflectively, and that reflection is an important part of the learning that can happen in games.
Henry Jenkins makes the excellent point that although that might not always be our first choice as parents, we spend a lot of time at soccer games and violin recitals and other things that we do not because we like them but because they matter to our kids.
3. Do we really need games to learn? Aren’t they just something that helps motivate kids?
Yes, we really do need computer games. They aren’t just something that would be “nice to have” because they “make learning more fun.”
Computers and video games are tools that let us make simulations that let players do things that are too expensive, too complicated, too dangerous to in the real world. In that sense good games can be more authentic than school by offering more realistic and more meaningful ways of thinking about problems that matter in the world–the kind of problems that young people need to be able to solve if they are going to find good jobs, express themselves in an increasingly technological world, and figure out how to keep us from melting the planet, using up all the water we have, or just killing each other off in the fight for dwindling resources.
4. Can’t kids get addicted to playing games?
Yes, people can become addicted to anything that they like. Kids need a balance in the things they do: read books, do arts and crafts, watch TV and movies and learn to do that responsibly, play sports, hike in the woods, sit around talking with friends about nothing in particular. But kids also need a chance to use the technologies that are shaping the world they live in, and computer games are one way to do that.
Part of our job as adults is to help children find a good balance, and sometimes that means saying “no” when they want to do things they want to do. If someone is doing anything–playing computer games, reading books, playing sports, whatever–to the point where it interferes with their ability to maintain healthy relationships, function in school or work, if they become belligerent when asked to stop, well, then there is a problem, and you need to get help to solve it.
The post should be appearing on the Macarthur Digital Learning and Media Blog sometime soon….
Marshall was right
A recent article in the New York Times suggests that members are becoming increasingly disenchanted with Facebook:
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Facebook, the online social grid, could not command loyalty forever. If you ask around, as I did, you’ll find quitters. One person shut down her account because she disliked how nosy it made her. Another thought the scene had turned desperate. A third feared stalkers. A fourth believed his privacy was compromised. A fifth disappeared without a word.
At the same time, we’ve seen an explosion in the use of (and talk about) Twitter–not least because of its role in political events in Iran over the summer.
Soon, no doubt, people will become disenchanted with Twitter and some new Internet tool will be the next big thing. E-mail was cool once; now, not so much. Then instant messaging. Then blogging. Then texting.
For fans of Marshall McLuhan, this is anything but surprising. As I point out in How Computer Games Help Children Learn:
Media scholar Marshall McLuhan once said that “content” is like a juicy piece of meat that a burglar uses to lull a guard dog to sleep. What he meant is that the things we do with a new technology, such as the printing press or television, are less important than the fact that we are using the technology at all. Reading and writing change us in ways more profound than the content of any single book. Television’s power is its ability to bring the world to our living rooms—and it doesn’t matter, in the end, which part of the world pays us a visit, because whoever comes to call makes the world seem like a smaller place. New technologies change the speed and kind of information we exchange and thus change the way we interact with each other and understand the world.
The Internet is about connectivity: about exchanging information. Most of us don’t care about the technical details of how that is done, using IP addresses and packet switching. We think we care about the specifics of the software we use, such as Twitter or Facebook. And yes, getting the details right matters. The properties of a tool shape the way it is used and the impact it has.
But in the end the details of any specific Internet tool may matter less than the interconnectivity itself. Blog, message, or mail: at some point arguing about the differences is just tweeting in the wind.
It is anecdotal data, but nevertheless…
From a 4th/5th grade teacher who used Urban Science in her class:
Students with video gaming did better with the zoning maps; they had developed the visual hand to eye skills to be able to infer meaning with their actions. Students who spent less time gaming had greater difficulty with the maps….
The key point? That the visual skills from gaming are not necessarily just hand-to-eye. They are hand-to-eye-to-mind.
