So, I feel as though the feeling I have right now is becoming pretty typical after each weeks readings. I'm on the edge about the idea of bringing a gamer like atmosphere into the classroom. Because of the reading, I now see the advantages of gaming and what it brings into gamers lives. I guess I never saw any meaning to gaming and I would definitely judge gamers who would spend hours on end staring at a screen instead of interacting with real people.
The most interesting part of today's resources was the video. Something that Jane said really stuck out to me. She said that "we should make reality more like games". Now, at first I thought I heard it wrong and it was the other way around, but after going back and replaying the part I realized that I heard right. I think there is a definite problem with that statement. And I never got a clear answer from her on why that needed to happen. Why can't we make games more like reality? I understand her reasoning for the love of games, but I think she is being a little optimistic claiming that we can solve social/ economic and other problems through gaming.
Just for the sole fact that I cannot stare at a screen for a very long period before my eyes hurting turns me off from bringing more screens into the classroom. Until I realize how gaming can bring learning into the classroom, I'm not sure I will be doing that. How can that be done if our well-being as society members is to network and be social? Aren't most jobs found through the people that you know? How can we expect our student to find a place in society if they only know "people" through screens?
Again, your hair looks good.
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts on video games are coming in loud and clear. I am in the same camp as you and definitely judge people that spend hours upon hours playing video games.
I still see value in gaming, however. I think the reluctance to accept video games as having societal value and as a valid learning tool stems from its content and the way it is marketed.
Video games, especially the popular ones, are admittedly violent, may degrade women, or at least allow the gamer to engage in socially questionable behavior. I believe it is the fault of society -- and not the video game industry itself -- that there is a market for such games. People create the demand for violent video games and the industry responds. Violence (and sex, for that matter) sells, and this applies to every sort of medium. There are many games that exist that are not violent, but they are often marginalized because society fails to see their worth. They prefer their sex and violence.
Video games also carry the stigma of being labeled as "games." The term "game" contains certain connotations that inherently suggest the content is of little worth. A game is recreation. Fun. This recreational aspect has been the primary marketing point for video games. Perhaps if video games were called something more appropriate, like "virtual experiences," and more attention was given to the more positive, enriching, and engaging "virtual experiences," the reluctance of incorporating these experiences into education would subside.
When you get the chance, please read my blog post on this topic. I'd even suggest that you try "Portal" (if you haven't already), if not for fun, but for exploratory purposes.
Also, thanks for bringing up your thoughts in discussion. I've never realized how passionate I am about this topic until now.
(I agree with RJ, the Hair looks great)
ReplyDeleteWell put! I think the speaker's way to optimistic about gaming contributing to the solving of world problems. Not only are games limited to the ideas that the programers input, but the bigger oversight she makes is the fact that gamer's play games to substitute reality, not to supplement reality. You don't play a game to make you think more about the real world, you play a game to think LESS about the real world. That's why I doubt if the games she mentioned would even be played by that many people... I know I sure wouldn't!
On the point of networking, it only takes one commonality to bring people together. What used to be inappropriate or culturally unacceptable usually becomes commonplace, so when people were getting jobs because the interviewer liked that the applicant was interested in baseball just like them, that is obviously deviating away from the actual qualifications of the job. As more and more people become bonafide gamers, there will be that social connection that brings people together.
ReplyDeleteHaha - I agree - your hair looks great!
ReplyDeleteI understand what you mean about gaming. I too was someone who used to judge those that seem to spend a lot of their time in front of them. And while I do think a lot of networking happens in person, I do think it also happens and connections are maintained via the internet. I certainly do not think that video games can become any dominant sort of force in the classroom, but as a tool I think there might be something to it - probably something more than Oregon Trail (though I will say that I learned a valuable lesson about cholera and buying supplies, arms, and oxen). It's all about content - so let's hope that with 1 billion more people entering the gaming world, including some of our future students, there will be more educational games on the market! And who knows - Oregon Trail was created by 3 student teachers back in 1971 - maybe one of us will make our own educational video game!