In this month’s IGDA Culture Clash column, ‘A modest proposal‘, Matt Sakey writes about the use of games-based learning – but goes somewhat overboard, and basically proposes replacing everything with games:
Experts say that games can’t completely replace other forms of pedagogy. Maybe not, if you simply take games and try to stuff them up the current model for education, a model based mostly on rote memorization through lecture, and less on interpretation and application. You’re told that Animal Farm is a commentary on Socialism, told where Bhutan is. Games don’t work that way; they are experiential. Players draw their own conclusions from the context, which is why games couldn’t totally replace the system as it exists today. Redesign the model to focus on experiential learning, though, and games would be a perfect fit. Of course, the games would have to be very well-designed.
So, there we have it – re-work all of education into experiential education, then make games of it all. This is all rather extreme and very idealistic – although not ideals that I subscribe to myself. It’s a shame as there are a number of points that Matt makes that I would agree with. There is, for example, some evidence to support the assertion that:
So teachers simply help their students memorize what they know will appear on the standardized tests. The result: a generation that can take the crap out of a test but has no idea what anything means.
And then Matt says:
People learn when they think about things, and that’s really what games make you do.
In fact, numerous reports on game based learning (several I’ve mentioned before on this blog, apologies for not linking to them just now – I may return and add the links later) emphasize the need for teachers to facilitate reflection when games are used in class. Why? Because in most cases playing the game alone is not enough to make students think things through.
