Okay. A serious blog. And I am British, although this could well apply to both sides of the Atlantic. Our education system is a little different to you..
So, a while ago, we had a training day (translation - a day when staff have to go into school when the kids don't and do stuff) and some of the kids were asked to show us 'their' technology like the PS3, 360, DS, etc etc as well as showing us sites like Bebo and how they use them. The idea was to try and understand if any of the stuff that the kids used could be used in education. The advantage being that kids are used to this technology and can function perfectly well while doing several things at once. Apparently, a large proportion of people under the age of 25 or so function at 'twitch' speed, meaning they can focus on many things at once, although much of what they come into contact with is surface knowledge and can be quickly lost.
Anyway, the upshot of this was that the kids had a great time. They had something that we, the educators, were shite at. They kicked our asses. All day. I wanted to throw my Wii controller at the screen. Or at a kid. It made me realise that there are a huge amount of skills that they develop from using these consoles. The skills they have through simply playing a game with their mates are pretty impressive. The interesting thing is that they learn largely by repetition. They repeat the same thing until they get it right or win. Quick reward. Can this be used in school? The premise of it , yes. But I fail to see how it can teach kids some important stuff.
Most gamers that I know are usually dedicated. Alot of kids play games randomly, but aren't what I think of as serious. Serious gamers seem to have a high level of intelligence and enjoy the strategies of games rather than the quick reward. These kids will usually function at a high level within school and need a great deal of challenge and stimulus. Would they then resent gaming becoming part of education? Is gaming their escape? Will bringing this into school work? I don't know. Maybe you have an opinion.
I can't resist.
I have to have a comedy moment. A joke.
What is black and crispy and sits at the top of the stairs?
Stephen Hawking after a house fire.
Nuff said.
|
Kids loved it.
Just because personally, I get more done in life - professionally, relationship wise, and socially when games are not forefront. It might work for some, but not for all, like most teaching methods. So I'd use it as much as teachers use the Hobbit cartoon to entertain the class while they grade papers.
Males were generally better handling the thing, girls not so much. This is corroborated by an study, but I think it was with laparoscopy surgery.
In this case Iam better just because i had experience in controllers... and actually is kind of a videogame (you have a screen and a control).
I can imagine a whole field in virtual reality for training in this medical procedures... but games? probably it wont go any further than Trauma Center.
So thats my experience in teaching using games.
What is the goddamned point of this? I don't get Second Life to begin with, but this is just a waste of money and energy that could be directed elsewhere. Our university just loves to suck the cock of any new technology/innovation that comes along, so we can brag about it to prospective students.
Alright, sorry for the rant. Games can be used effectively to educate, like in some of the other examples mentioned, but not in this case.
Video game players can learn a lot from playing video games. But I don't think they're gonna become staple parts of the curriculum anytime soon. A video games as art high school senior english class will happen sooner than widescale use of gaming in the classroom.