Discussion within Salen (2008) suggests that gaming technologies could lead to effects with and through technology (Salomon & Perkins, 2005). Effects with technology are “amplified performance while one is operating a tool” (Salomon & Perkins, 2005, p. 74). Gee (2008) describes such effects as he discusses SWAT4. For example, he describes a doorstop as a tool that helps players “master the content” of the game (p. 25) and notes that virtual characters offload some skills, so that players “can do more than the learner is currently capable of doing” (p. 32). Thus the doorstop and characters are tools that amplify learners’ performance within the game. What is unclear is whether these tools amplify any performance outside the game. Gee provides no empirical evidence of this, which leads me to question whether we yet know of meaningful effects with gaming technologies.
Effects through technologies occur when technology “reshapes activity systems rather than just augmenting them” (Salomon & Perkins, 2005, p. 79). Stevens, Satwicz, and McCarthy (2008) provide an example via their description of Holly and Brandon’s differing interactions over video games versus homework. In the former context, Holly offers suggestions to Brandon despite her low level of knowledge. In the latter context, she is reluctant to do so. Although it remains unclear what is learned by either party via the reshaped activity system that seemingly lowers the consequences of being wrong, the reshaping does seem a clear effect through gaming technologies. This suggests, at least, the potential to make us smarter through increased experimentation and risk-taking.
Interesting post Katie! Great example of effects with technology; however, I would like to add that I think games go further in effects with technology than you indicate Gee (2009) also points out that games allow users to experience distributed intelligence, cross-functional teams, and increased motivation, all of which would not be possible without the game. I am also a bit skeptical of your explanation of effects through technology. I am not yet convinced of the effects through technology made possible by games based upon your example. Effects through technology seems to refer to paradigm shifting changes made within a domain as a result of technology, and I am not sure that games have reached that level as of yet (Salomon & Perkins, 2013).
Hi Katie, I enjoyed your post. I also spent time thinking about Holly’s interactions with Brandon during gaming compared to homework time (Stevens, Satwicz, and McCarthy, 2007). I agree that this suggests a change in activity systems that we haven’t fully illuminated, but overall I wasn’t impressed with the significance of this finding. I am more convinced by Gee’s point about the design of games leading to their effective learning environments. I don’t disagree that in-room collaboration has a role in student learning, but I’m not persuaded that this is the main affordance of gaming when it is not an activity that requires physical peers. It seems obvious to me that the main social event of gaming is the participatory experience online, not having someone sitting with you. What are your thoughts on this?
Hi Matthew,
I certainly agree that there are plenty of effects with technology via games that I did not discuss! I found the doorstop example especially interesting and so I highlighted it, but I agree there is more to be explored. I’m particularly interested in how games allow for different kinds of embodiment — something discussed further in Gee’s book Good Video Games + Good Learning, which I’m just starting to read (Gee, 2013). I don’t blame you for your skepticism on the effect through technology; however, I choose to take a more hopeful stance. It’s definitely true that for video games to have an “effect through” in school contexts, a very large paradigm shift would have to occur, and we’re nowhere near that. But I do think example games exist that show the promise of reshaping systems to minimize fear of failure. The effects are possible — how to make them widespread is a different issue.
Reference:
Gee, J. P. (2013). Good Video Games + Good Learning, 2nd Edition. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Hi Sarah,
I appreciate your distinction between the changed learning environment versus collaboration. Truth be told, I wasn’t thinking about collaboration at all when I considered Holly and Brandon’s interaction (although now that you point it out, it seems strange to me that I didn’t!). I was mostly focused on Holly and the change in her behavior. Her willingness to participate without fear of failure was the interesting part to me — the fact that the participation took the form of collaboration with Brandon was ancillary. Given that, I think I agree with you that the effects through video games lie in the reshaping of the environment. In my view, it’s that reshaping that changed Holly’s behavior. I pictured that reduced lack of fear as manifesting in a variety of different ways of which increased collaboration is just one. It could also lead Holly to try a new strategy independently, for example.
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)