one: On Video Games and World Salvation
Jane McGonigal made interesting points in her TED talk, but I have to say that I'm not entirely convinced. For one thing, I would have liked a better definition of what she was referring to when she talked about gaming. It seems like at the beginning, she was using gaming to refer to only MMORPGs, but then in her applications stage, she shifted to be talking more about enhanced reality. Both of those are very narrow definitions of gaming which leaves out pretty much every game I've ever played. If that's what she meant to do, that's fine, but then the talk should have been titled "MMORPGs and Enhanced Reality Can Make A Better World," not "Gaming Can Make A Better World." Maybe this is a lack of my transfer skills, but I'm having a hard time applying her hypothesis to how tabletop roleplaying games (such as Dungeons and Dragons), board games (of all sorts, including those along the lines of checkers, Parcheesi, Settlers of Catan, and Arkham Horror), arcade games (such as PacMan or Bejeweled), casual video games (such as Rock Band, Wii Sports, and Super Smash Brothers), and live-action role playing games (such as Swarthmore's annual Pterodactyl Hunt) can save the world. Secondly, I'm not even sure if her hypothesis, even applied only to MMORPGs and enhanced reality games, hangs together. I'm still not quite sure how her model really applies the competencies she claims gaming develops to the real world. Thirdly, she uncritically cited Herodotus in her argument as a historical source. As a classicist, anyone who uses the Father of Lies like that automatically loses a bit of my respect.
two: On Transfer Learning
I found the discussion in How People Learn about how people do things differently in academic vs non-academic contexts really interesting. I would have assumed that being able to do math in a supermarket or selling things on the street would have automatically translated into being able to do the same sort of thing in an academic setting, but apparently it isn't that automatic. But then I think to how I multiply numbers in my head, which generally involves things like factoring numbers and recombining them to get numbers I can keep straight in my head, and it makes a bit more sense. If I were multiplying the numbers on paper, I would go about the problem in a totally different way, by multiplying across by place values and adding the results of each pass. It isn't so surprising after all that someone who's been navigating the supermarket by doing mental math tricks is going to have difficulty applying that knowledge to the more formal mathematics involved in schools. And other subjects mutatis mutandis. I think that keeping in mind this issue of transfer is important for librarians. We've all gone through formal schooling with at least some modicum of success, which means that a large portion of how we go to think is founded on that more formal kind of learning. But many of the patrons we're going to be serving are working from the more everyday, hands-on kind of knowledge. Keeping this distinction in mind can help us in instruction, and drawing connections between prior knowledge and new knowledge.
three: On High School Curricula
I can't help feeling that one reason why teachers don't use lessons like the one for teaching about central tendency described in the Wiggins and McTighe article is because they feel like they'd take so long. Going through all the steps in their lesson plan looks like it would take several days, especially in a high school where teachers may only have 45 minutes a day with each class. In contrast, the traditional plan for teaching mean, median, and mode could get covered in two days at the very most. When you have a list a mile long of things you're supposed to do before the end of the year (or even scarier, before the state standardized exams in the spring), are you going to go with the more in-depth teaching for understanding approach, even through it's going to take longer, or are you going to go for covering as much as possible as fast as possible, even if not everyone understands it as well? Unless we can either retrofit the high-stakes tests to test for understanding (or get rid of them altogether) or ensure and convince teachers and administrators that teaching for understanding will lead students to perform as well or better on these tests, I have a feeling that Door 2 is going to be the most popular option.
I think you hit it on the head: depth takes more time than breadth. Also - you bring a refreshing point of view in considering McGonigal's presentation.
ReplyDeleteI too have been struggling with determining how instructors can reconcile time constraints with the methods recommended for deeper learning. While I do hope that teachers/administrators can be convinced depth of understanding is the more important goal, I also wonder if there isn't some middle ground - some way to balance depth with breadth?
ReplyDeleteLove your comments on McGonigal's presentation!
I think you bring up a good point about standardized tests. We have been talking so much this week about teachers needing to change the ways they help students learn. But it's a lot more complicated than just the teachers changing, the students, administrators, and communities need to be involved in the change too. This can go all the way up to the state and their standardized tests. It looks like this change will be on a larger scale than it sounds like in the article.
ReplyDeleteAbout your comments on the McGonigal presentation: one of the few things I remember from my Ancient Greek and Roman history class was discussing Herodotus' validity as an historian, so I also questioned the use of Herotodus as a historical source. And I would also be curious as to your question on how to apply her theories to all sorts of games.
ReplyDeleteOn your comments about high school curricula, my vote would be to cut out all standardized testing, unless it would be possible to create a test that would accurately assess a classroom situation in which students were truly taught learning with understanding. Standardized testing in which students are forced to recall facts does not accurately assess their learning.