The question that seems to be addressed in the readings is, “Do games help individuals learn better?”. With that question in mind, Salomon and Perkins (2013) state that technology can impact education in 3 ways: effects with, effects of, and effects through technology.
First, it is important to establish what learning is, and how we know if an individual gets better at it. Using the definition given by Gee (2008) that learning is when, “…people learn from experiences stored in long-term memory.”, then deep learning experiences are needed to enhance learning. Games, themselves can not make individuals learn better, but it is the interaction of the individuals with gaming environments that allows games to enhance learning. As a user is interacting with a gaming environment the user is experiencing effects with games. The game is providing an environment which allows the user to experience distributed intelligence, cross-functional teams, emotion, and motivation in a world which mixes these elements of deep learning in an intoxicating and effective cocktail (Gee, 2008). Effects of games would allow the transfer of learning experiencing in game to be utilized in the wider world. Stevens et al. (2008) investigate the effect of transfer between games and other situations. While the exact way in which games impact individuals’ lives outside of games remains elusive, it is true that in-game lives mix with experiences outside of games to produce unique situations that would not exist without participation in games (Stevens et al., 2008).
Hi Matthew,
I definitely resonate with the statement “While the exact way in which games impact individuals’ lives outside of games remains elusive…” and ‘transfer’ that may happen through games. In CEP 916, with Rand Spiro, we discussed how in the classic novice vs expert chess players experiment (Chase & Simon, 1973) experts were better at remembering actual chess configurations, but not random configurations. In this case, ‘better cognition and memory’ (and the particular memory chunking) is domain specific to chess and not ‘generalizable’. Gee (2008) mentions that modeling would lead to ‘abstraction’ and generalization, but it would be great to see how it happens empirically! Do you think that more empirical studies are required to make more substantial claims about games and learning?
—-
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive psychology, 4(1), 55-81.
Hi Matthew – I made a similar connection in my post about technologies making us smarter when they explicitly enhance complex cognitive functioning. Your statement “The game is providing an environment which allows the user to experience distributed intelligence, cross-functional teams, emotion, and motivation in a world which mixes these elements of deep learning in an intoxicating and effective cocktail (Gee, 2008)” was a huge takeaway for me. Not only is gaming “making us smarter,” but it has implications for motivation and behavior too! Based on our mutual interest in motivation, do you think it would be useful to understand the impact of games on motivation for education? Gee (2008) discusses some work that investigates how games are motivated by interest and engagement.
Administrators:
Christine Greenhow
Diana
Rand
cainwil1
Ming
Top Posters:
galvins1: 51
richkat3: 50
albertsk: 43
moudgal1: 43
schellma: 41
liraamal: 39
Emilia: 35
zhumengd: 34
Forum Stats:
Groups: 6
Forums: 19
Topics: 97
Posts: 339
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 77
Moderators: 0
Admins: 5
Most Users Ever Online: 58
Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)