An Interview with James Gee...

First Big Question from this interview (retrieved 25 June 2007):

"All of the research that has determined that video games have positive effects has been about low-level brain activity, such as visual acuity and multi-modal processing. Where's the research that shows that games can provide other positive effects, be they improved application of logical reasoning, increased sensitivity to moral issues, or something else?"

James Gee response:

"Here a few things worth looking at:
Jones, S., (July 6, 2003). Let the Games Begin: Games and Entertainment Among College Students." Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Durkin, K., & Barber, B., (2002). Not so doomed: computer game play and positive adolescent development. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 373-392.

Gros, B., (2003). The impact of digital games in education. First Monday (www.firstmonday.org), Issue 8_7.

Fischer, G., (2003). Beyond "Couch Potatoes": From Consumers to Designers and Active Contributors. First Monday (www.firstmonday.org), Issue 7_12.

However, I would not want to claim that "video games have positive effects," but rather that "video games used in different ways have different effects." We learned long ago that a technology -- television, for example -- is not "good" or "bad." When children watch television passively, it is not particularly good for them, but when they watch with adults who get them to think and talk about what they are watching, then it can be good for them. I argue that video games can be good for children and adults when played actively and thought about at a meta-level in terms of their design features and the sorts of interactions they allow or encourage.

Furthermore, I don't claim that there is now lots of research showing games are good for deeper purposes. Rather, I argue that game technology has a great potential to be useful in getting people to learn and think about things (socially, cognitively, and morally). We need to study this potential and make use of it in new settings beyond the commercial markets to which most games are directed. This enterprise is just beginning. It has taken us years of research to sort out the uses and effects of literacy as a technology in its various social, historical, and cognitive settings and situations. So the questions really are these: Is game technology a worthwhile thing to study? Does it hold potential for spreading to contexts outside gaming?

What is most powerful about video games, I would argue, is that the "consumer" (player, learner) is also a "producer." Players actively co-create the virtual worlds of games by the decisions they make and the actions they take. In opened-ended games, the game is different for every player. Further, they can fairly easily build extensions and modifications to many games."

Tom's thoughts:

So, we, as Instructional Designers, are left with this challenge, to interpret the "high-potential" for use at a "meta level", map that to specific learning situations and instructional designs and events, make decisions on its use based on our knowledge of appropriate learning principles (and theoretical foundations) and be able to justify that design element to our users and customers and the end users.

I find this argument intriguing, but lacking sufficient tangential and supporting oomph... for the same reasons Gee himself stated. Are we really just looking at yet another round of skepticism and opposing hype around a new technology? I believe 100% in technology's value, but I have some reservations about overselling the technology without the stated application of thoughtful design.

Surely, there's a lot to be done in this field to establish repeatable, research based results and knowledge, and to integrate this and other new (and in my opinion, more readily integrated) social technologies.

It's tough to counteract the inertia of history and to accommodate the burden of proof - especially when we have multiple historical references that show the it's not the tool but how we use it - and in light of the fact that we still can't seem to find significant and consistent value in the research on other relatively new technologies - i.e. LMS, WWW, virtual classrooms, etc.