tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6970261679520842842.post6577463650733240778..comments2007-02-27T08:23:03.919-08:00Evanorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05596754413864783601noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6970261679520842842.post-66658565716599992442007-02-27T08:20:00.000-08:002007-02-27T08:20:00.000-08:00What a great comment Ethan! Absolutely terrific thoughts and you hit some of my unspoken areas of concern. "Deeper, more serious issues" are indeed what we should be looking at, and throwing technology on top of something that's intrinsically <I>off</I> is not a fix. Thanks so much for taking the time to write. I am now going to press you for an interview. I'd love to sit and discuss all kinds of things, so you're going to have to let me know how I can find you. Please?<BR/>Take care - ShavaunEvanorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05596754413864783601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6970261679520842842.post-85400794019240808472007-02-27T01:03:00.000-08:002007-02-27T01:03:00.000-08:00One more thing: Just read this interview with James Paul Gee<BR/>http://pc.gamezone.com/news/07_03_03_06_17PM.htm<BR/><BR/>He sounds like a great guy with a bunch of interesting ideas. I especially like the fact that he's mainly extracting principals of successful games' rewards systems for real-world testing and application.<BR/><BR/>I completely disagree with his assertion that story-driven games are "bottom up" while movies are "top-down." I think the games are more apparently bottom-up, but all in all, even the most interactive games are still very narrow in<BR/>focus, assumption, and modes of interaction (in game, with the virtual world, and also considering the human-technology interface.)<BR/><BR/>He makes a distinction between "proactive playing" and "passive playing" as a key element in whether games are beneficialy, but this assumes that the player has gone through extensive training in self-awareness and critical thought beforehand in order to safely approach games in a "proactive" manner. I question whether games would ever automatically develop those abilities in players.<BR/><BR/>Video games are gold right now, by far the largest portion of the industrial entertainment industries. So it is not surprising to me that any research which may facilitate expansion of the industry--especially to captive audiences in a structurally-authoritarian education system--would prove to be lucrative, both in terms of industry sponsorship and student interest. A couple of years ago, I would have jumped at the opportunity to study under Dr. Gee.ethannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6970261679520842842.post-91337936228512900522007-02-27T00:38:00.000-08:002007-02-27T00:38:00.000-08:00hi Shavaun,<BR/><BR/>I feel a need to add to the idea that video-games could impact the education system. I'd like to preface this comment saying that I've done a fair amount of research on structural education reform for democracy--looking at the entire system: how it relates to the rest of society and how the internal components relate to one another. In addition to the comments below (which were pre-written, prompted by discussion at gamerwidow.com), I'd like to warn that adding video-games to the mix, or I should say moreso (considering that they were used over a decade ago in MY education!!), would at best only distract from deeper, more serious issues endemic to the education system and the very structure of our society. That is, adapting education even further to a broken system rather than fixing the system and the imbalances it engenders. This line of reasoning runs counter to current conventional wisdom on "education reform" which in summary is 1) focus on content at the expense of examining structure and 2) find ways to increase the amount and role of technology in the learning process!<BR/>------------------<BR/>Games offer consistent rewards and punishment, based on a set of simple criteria ("rules") that is either explicitly defined ahead of time, or simple enough to learn early into the game. The rules change infrequently, and when they do, the change is often explicit or otherwise obvious (eg, switching to a different game or genre). "Progress" and performance increases are simple, easy to recognize and assess.<BR/><BR/>The rest of life offers a stark contrast: rewards and punishment are often inconsistent, based on a set of criteria that is often both unclear and ever-changing. It can be confusing and frustrating, especially when put in relation to the neat, explicit simplicity of "virtual words." <BR/><BR/>Thus we can arrive at a partial explanation for gamers' addictions, if it can be demonstrated that people who spend hours in well-defined "virtual worlds" are changing the relationship between the virtual and real worlds in their mind. That is to say, instead of recognizing that virtual worlds depend on the real world (and not vice-versa), they start to become "apparently-equal" elements that coexist in space. Redefining the relationship of virtual worlds to the real world from one of dependency to "equal coexistence" opens the door to legitimize "better than/worse than" comparisons between the two. The enticing reward system of virtual worlds itself provides motivation for reprioritizing the importance of the virtual world and one's existence/performance therein.<BR/><BR/>Based on this, something like changing the reward system in schools could have a huge impact on student motivation and performance. For example, the current system is based on a comparative evaluation model--that is to say, we define one student's performance in relation to a field of others (eg, comprising the "average," making the student always either "above average" or "below average"). There is opportunity to change this system by adding a second, equally-strong component which redefines student progress based on longitudinal performance evaluation. Track and field teams often do this by celebrating various team members' "PRs" ("personal records"). No matter where that person's performance on the team stands in relation to the other athletes, there is still a reward in place for doing better.<BR/><BR/>Also, it is important to note that given the aforementioned difference between virtual and real world reward systems, becoming adept at "virtual reward systems" factors into addiction by emphasizing the frustration and confusion of real-world reward systems (or apparent lack thereof!). Increasingly, the "real world carrot and stick" becomes just a "small carrot, BIG STICK" which ironically gives more motivation to withdraw from it even further. <BR/><BR/>This is a stark contrast from the claim that virtual worlds can more effectively teach real-world skills, not because it debunks that claim, but because it adds another layer of analysis which questions whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, and if not, whether they should, how and under what criteria.<BR/>----------<BR/>So, basically, examining video-game addiction can give us insight into motivation. But we should be careful about transplanting video-games directly and literally into the education process itself, and also question whether a claimed "lack of technology" is the real reason for performance problems, not to mention hiding problems inherent in technology-heavy education itself.ethannoreply@blogger.com