I found the link to James Gee’s Keynote address from the Curriculum Corporation conference, August 2006 recently. I then printed it out and read it – making numerous notes in the margins as I went. Then I proceeded to lose the print out. So what follows is a more summary review than what I would have given had I not lost the original!
The first part of the paper outlines six features of games that Gee believes facilitate good learning. The second part outlines some features of “a good game”, leading Gee to conclude that
These basic features of games as games appear to be important features of effective learning.
From a cursory re-read, it is clear that Gee has no significant gaping holes in logic – nor would I expect him to with his academic background. The general critical tone of this blog seems to demand that I consider and emphasise the weaknesses of the paper – though in many places it is hard for me to disagree with the points Gee makes.
For example, when he outlines the six features of games with high learning potential, the description of each feature ends with a sentence saying something like “Could this feature be used more generally in education?” or “If this could be used, it would solve an educational problem…”. It isn’t easy objecting to open questions!
The fifth feature Gee lists is that of “Situated meaning”. Here he uses one example of students who have learned how to solve a problem in the classroom but not how to apply the method outside of the classroom. Gee states that
Students come to understand the words in a situated fashion only if and when they can apply the words to specific situations and to the solution of specific problems
As it happens, I think the potential for situated learning could be one of the best thing about learning in virtual environments, so I am really in agreement here. But to me, Gee’s linguistic background has made him make less of situated learning than he might otherwise. This section is based almost entirely round the meanings of words, but I think the possible gains could be more than simply learning the appropriate meaning of words in particular domains. If problems can be presented in a range of way, we can try to develop students’ ability to abstract situations, form generalisations and recognise similarities.
How People Learn has an example of Brazilian street children who are able to solve difficult math problems in their native domain – street trading – but cannot do so in the classroom. The book argues that the ability to transfer problem solving skills between different domains requires students to be able to recognize features of problems that are the same, even where the domain is new to them. And the development of this ability is helped by presenting the same basic problem in a range of domains.
On the other hand, I really don’t know what to make of the research question
could we use video games to achieve a marriage of ‘in game’ goals (the goals that flow from an academic area or from the teacher) with students’ personal goals and learning styles, for use in school learning and for learning in other contexts?
The point of comparison is game goals versus personal goals in games which encourage free-roaming play (Elder Scrolls, Grand Theft Auto, etc.). But is this simply asking ‘can we use games to make students more interested in learning about science?’ This seems to be trying to instill intrinsic motivation in students for learning science. Is this goal one that games can really achieve? If so, are games the best means of achieving this? Possibly not.
Further, in saying that games “can be open-ended in ways that encourage a melding of personal and social goals”, Gee is overlooking the fact that a player of Grand Theft Auto has probably already decided to try to achieve at least some of the goals of the game – no matter how open ended the play is. If they had no intention to follow the game missions, they’d probably be playing a different game instead. The ‘social goals’ are in this case really no different from the personal goals, and likely don’t require much effort to meld them together.
Getting a student who doesn’t like, and isn’t interested in, a particular study topic is a quite different problem.
This is already quite a long entry, and I’m still on the first part of the paper. I’ll consider the second part later – where Gee argues that many of the typical features of good games are also important features of effective learning.
In the meantime, I welcome any comments – on the critique such as it is, or on Gee’s paper.
“But to me, Gee’s linguistic background has made him make less of situated learning than he might otherwise. ”
I think a common problem for education academia. They are much more likely to have a humanities background and overlook the potential for maths and physics learning.
Nice find Danny, and a very useful read for my new PhD student and I. One of the things we are looking at is to find correspondence between the inherent learning structure of games and educational practices/needs. Also Gee addresses one of the key questions that we have come up against early on – “non-game features may not work as well for learning if they are detached from the game features”. I would guess that most could not be detached but this would need to be tested.
Yes Tony its a common enough fault. I know I’ve got my own set of blinkers, so I can’t be too hard – though I do sometimes find myself reading papers on educational practice and wondering ‘But how can I apply this to *my* topic?’.
And Darryl, I think the other question that you need to watch out for is that in some cases “non-game features may not work as well for learning when they ARE presented with game features”
I found my original print out, by the way, so I’ll write up the rest of the critique tomorrow.