 In last week's Economist an article titled "Games Lessons" appeared in the Education, psychology and technology section.
I have a question, though. Why would saying "the future of schooling may lie with video games" "sound like a cop-out"? To "cop-out" of something means to "avoid taking responsibility for an action or to avoid fulfilling a duty"... so how is using an extremely effective medium in an educational setting to improve students' learning and performance... a cop-out?
It seems that the author (not sure who wrote the piece) disapproves of "transferring much of the pedagogic effort form the teachers themselves (who will now act in an advisory role)" to the games the students are playing.
Obviously this author has never been a teacher.
The main focus of the article is on the Quest to Learn school in New York. One of the theoretical foundations of the Quest to Learn school rests firmly on the work of James Paul Gee (click here to see a couple videos I posted a while back of an interview with him), though James is not directly involved with the school itself.
One of the neatest things about the Q2L school (at least, if you ask me) is the reworking of the traditional class periods. English? Science? History? Math? Adios. (No word on whether Spanish is being replaced.) Here's the PDF of Q2L's Overview of Curriculum. Really interesting stuff. "The Way Things Work, Being, Space and Place, and Wellness being just a few examples of course blocks.
You may be asking, "Yeah, sure, sounds like fun. But what can you possibly do with an education like that?" Seems that the Q2L folk have heard that before. Here's a list of Future Careers the school suggests for graduates:
Urban planner · Organizational Management · Economist · Engineer · Scientist (all) · Computer Scientist · Financial Analyst · International Relations · Entrepreneur · Business and Finance · Design (all) · Political strategist · Judge · Sustainability and Environmental Scientist · Human Factors Researcher · Anthropologist · Writer · Investigative Reporter · Learning Scientist · Inventor · Information architect · Playwright · Actuary · Biotechnologist
Doesn't sound half bad to me.
Anyway, the Economist article does make a good point in that the level of success will take a few years to find out. The school plans to admit pupils at the age of 12 and keep them until they are 18, so the first batch will not leave until 2016. If it fails, traditionalists will no doubt scoff at the idea that teaching through playing games was ever seriously entertained.
Let's just hope it does. I mean, what kid wouldn't love a school whose supply list for the new school year includes a pack of blank CDs, a pack of blank DVDs, a flash drive (at least 2 gigs) and a pair of USB headphones.
To keep tabs on exactly what's going on at the Q2L school, check out the Q2L Parents blog. Tell 'em who sent ya.
(Originally posted at Teach Video Games on September 10, 2009.)
|
Love this question. Just another example of commentary made be people who are not sufficiently familiar with the media. They hear games and think either Halo or Pac-Man, when clearly there can be so much more to it.
The only thing that concerns me about Q2L's efforts and its potential effect on the perceived effectiveness of games as a teaching tool is that use of games is not the only innovative facet of their approach. It sounds like they're trying to redefine the whole educational process, with their unique curriculum.
Therefore, if the first class they produce in 2016 fairs well or poorly, it won't be entirely due to the use of games. Yet if they perform poorly, it could put a dent in the introduction of practical games into the educational process. And if they do really well, they may encourage the overuse of games in school.
Regardless, great article. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for Q2L's progress in the future.
I have the same feelings about Q2L. It's great in theory, but the potential success or failure could be equally damaging to the future of games in education. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess. Thanks!
@Glenn
Not being a reader of the Economist, I appreciate the response. Wasn't really a rebuttal, so much as a prompt that led me to write about something I would've written about, anyway. :)
http://www.zenfar.com
Unfortunately, unless there is a major paradigm shift, it just isn't going to happen. Talk to the guys over at EA who make games with $30,000,000 budgets if there's any money in the sort of games that are specifically geared toward education and they will laugh. There's simply no money in it, hence the huge rift between COTS games and education-based games. I do agree, though; it'd be great to have games with COTS production quality made specifically for education, truly.