What Shaffer wrote about in his introduction, resonated with me. Mostly, that teaching "content-only" in schools is no longer appropriate with increased outsourcing for "industrial" skills in America (those practiced through memorization, trained skills, standardized tests). It was necessary when schools were first created during the Industrial Revolution. But now, we need to find a way to teach students to practice innovation, creativity, and adaptability to new technologies, information, and procedures. He claims one solution is through the use of epistemic games.
Chapter 1 of Shaffer's "How computer games help children learn" gets into more detail on what a "game" really is. He explains that "fun" and "competition" aren't defining characteristics of a game (though they may be a part of games). Instead a game is an activity in which players are assigned "roles" which are governed by rules (as is the backdrop of these roles)(p23). Later Shaffer refers to these as role-playing games (but doesn't tell us what other kinds of games there are, and if they have different defining characteristics!). Role-playing games allow students to begin forming subject-specific epistemologies (ways of thinking).
In order to play these games, student learn content...but that is not the point. The point is that they are learning to think more creatively, and practice being a "professional" in some field. In the process they should be thinking critically and creatively, forming epistemologies about the subject-at-hand. Note that technology has not even been mentioned yet...this is just about games (p38)! However, I think we'd all agree that technology can give an easier platform both to present, play, and collaborate on games AND to allow students to become familiar with new/different technologies to expand their ability to adapt in the future.
My only major critique of Shaffer, so far, is a seeming contradiction he makes. On page 8 he states that what we do with technology is less important than the fact that we're just using technology; however, he goes on to state that gaming doesn't require technology, and that in using games we must be careful to set them up to encourage learning (pp39-40). Seem odd to anyone else?
Posts
2 comments:
It does seem contradictory that Shaffer says what we do with technology is less important- in a way I'd like to believe that he means the emphasis is not the technology used but how it is used to achieve the teaching goals. By the way, the games Shaffer design, which he talks on further in the book, is not 3D high tech digital games. He basically sets up a "game" where students respond to a problem situation, reads the problem and their roles on a Website, and then communicate the hypothetical people via email. So, this may explain his comments. By the way, technology, broadly defined, varies greatly from pencils to digital media.
Yes, I often forget that dry-erase boards are "new technology" to many people. I suppose I should use the term "digital technology", as Prensky does, if I really just mean that newer technology that I often think of. Thanks!!
Post a Comment