I found general agreement and embraced much of the reading in the middle of chapter 6, chapter 7 and chapter 8. Troubling me in chapter 6 is the statement made by Aldrich 2004 in Gibson et al 2007, "...when learners engage with computer simulations, they become engaged in an atmosphere where they possess complete authority and are ruler supreme, such that everything within the context of the game environment is dependent on their actions." I agree with that statement completely but is this a desirable mode in which students should be encouraged to operate? Is the young boy at the checkout counter insisting on a piece of gum and eventually being placated by the artfully and unmistakable wearing down of their parent in no less a position of authority?
Like the story of Pinocchio where young lads venture the the island of indulgence to partake of what they will only to be later turned into donkeys, is the encouraging of students to become ruler supreme having similar effects to the egos of these students who once conditioned via gaming environments come to expect similar free reign in the world of reality? Aka Columbine...
On a lighter note Aldrich 2004 in Gibson et al 2007 hits a sweet spot with my observations of learning over the years when he states "Going through struggles, and then working through them, is essential if problem solving is to take place." Tying this struggle into learning through gaming shows that indeed, gaming seems to encourage persistence even in times of struggle with the game aiding in motivation through the four characteristics identified by Bransford et al 2000 in Gibson et al 2007, p.179; (1) Active engagement with content, (2) participation in groups, (3) frequent interaction and feedback, (4) personally relevant connections to real world contexts.
The motivational effectiveness of games on the "gamer generation" is explained by differences in gamer cognitive styles as identified by Prensky in Gibson et al 2007, p.179 (table I) and Aldrich et al 2005 in Gibson et al 2007 where gamers tend to favor values such as: imaginative, cheerful, broadminded, courteous and independent and Non-Gamers tend to favor values such as: honest, loving, responsible and helpful. This statement begs the question of whether gamers tend to disfavor unimaginative, grumpy, narrow-minded, cowardly dependents and while assuming that non-gamers are resistant to lying, hateful, irresponsible selfish types? Not exactly opposites but a pretty big gulf to cross.
Gibson et al 2007, chapter 9 moves from theory to practice and shows utility development of a gaming environment meant to appeal to "Gamer Teachers". This environment creates a sim in a game environment based upon well researched and documented classroom management, pedagogical and behavioral scenarios. Maybe for once pre-service teachers will actually learn what it is like to cope in a classroom environment before their first day of unaided teaching - I know I would have embraced such an environment 20 years ago.
What I liked most about chapter 9 is that the development of the classroom scenario sim has definite goals and objectives for the teachers to learn as well the ability to view expert advice as needed. To me this is significant since it is a quantum step towards acknowledging that a higher source of authority is codified and predictably identifiable and not only usable but in fact highly recommended. For a while I had been starting to wonder if the future of teaching was bent on the effluent social construction of knowledge or if some higher authority might have a chance at carving out a preferred knowledge based on best practice and expert ( as opposed to social group) knowledge. Certainly teaching as a mechanism to mentor and lead students towards a functional, proven and relatively focused end point must still be alive and well.
No comments:
Post a Comment