Video Games a waste of Time?
Video Games a Waste of Time?
Summary
Gee starts out by talking about literacy and semiotics claiming that reading and writing are not the only components of literacy, rather it is being able gather meaning from words AND images, symbols, graphs, etc. He also states that “people need to be literate in a great variety of different semiotic domains” (20). A semiotic domain that he explores throughout his book is video games, which he claims are “not necessarily a waste of time” (25). He goes on to illustrate why playing video games are not a waste of time stating that one is active learning when (1) by playing video games one learns to experience the world in new ways (2) they have the opportunity to join and collaborate with a new affinity group (3) develop the resources for future learning and problem solving (4) help one learn to think about semiotic domains as design spaces that engage and manipulate people. But then he questions whether those are good qualities to learn. He claims that if a good game that encourages active learning and critical thinking is played by someone who is ready to challenge themselves and interacts in the above 4 manners that the tactics can possibly even be brought into real-life experience such as science and math.
When Gee states that “Some readers of the first edition of this book were bothered by the word “semiotic” as a piece of jargon,” this reveals that some of the readers may not be as academic as he.
When he says that strategies and problem solving learned through playing video games can promote active and critical learning and can even possible apply to real life, he protects his claim that not all video games spur on that kind of learning. Since he backs his claim up with that I feel like he has less at stake,
My Video game Summary
I have spent countless hours on this website (http://games.asobrain.com/) playing explorers/settlers, which is a multi-player computer rendition of a board game similar to Settler’s of Catan. In the game you are supposed to settle and expand faster than the other players, you get points based on towns (1 point) and cities (2 points) you can get other points by having the longest road or largest army. You get resources (wheat, sheep, steel, wood, brick) to build roads, towns and cities depending on which pieces of land you settle. It requires a great deal of strategy, which I do not have the greatest. One that I have realized is that whoever gets to go first often ends up wining because they have the opportunity to choose the best piece of land. This reminds me of the first mover advantage that we talk about in marketing, whoever penetrates the market first usually has the best advantage… but they need a good strategy for success.
Inquiry
I thought the claim that video games encourage active and critical learning was very interesting. Many of the new educational tools are turning to video games as a means of teaching. I think video games being a way to foster active learning and critical thinking depends greatly on the game player and whether or not they are willing to challenge themselves and think critically.
1. In your life what are different “semiotic domains” that you must be literate in? Are you literate in those domains solely internally? Or also externally?
2. In your opinion, what are examples of video games that do not promote active learning or critical learning according to Gee’s standards of critical learning?
3. Do you play/have you played any video games that you feel have taught you problem solving skills that you have been able to carry into other areas of your life?
4 comments:
The idea that video games are exceptional learning devices is a completely sound and valid argument that I agree with entirely. I have personally conducted research on this subject and have only found evidence to support this claim. The reason that video games are considered to be great learning tools is because they employ exceptional teaching techniques. A perfect example of such a game is Portal, a puzzle/shooter that puts an anonymous hero into a research lab from which she must escape. The game requires strategic placement of entrance and exit portals (which are discharged from a handheld firearm) in order to get from point A to point B. The learning that comes from this experience is when the player analyzes the location and attempts to complete the objective. In the event of a failure, there is questioning on what happened, what went wrong, and what needs to be changed. Several attempts may follow, until the player discovers the correct course. This learning method of trial and error utilizes critical thinking by the player in order to analyze, develop, and instigate the appropriate actions for completing the objective.
Video games are a realm I know well. I spend about half of my goof off time on online sites playing games. I personally like games that play to my strengths. I like to plan things out and I like time management games. I think that for the major amount of the population who play shooter games, they don’t actually learn anything useful. I understand that these games can be helpful for the military, as we discussed in class, but it isn’t majorly useful to know how to kill aliens. Strategy games are only somewhat useful as well. I haven’t actually played risk but the basic idea of knowing how to take over the world is not necessary. I think that the best thing that video games have to offer is critical thinking skills. The example in the previous comment of portal is a fantastic form of this. Video games that make us think allow our brains to work harder and we can connect other things later in life.
I don’t actually play online/video games that often, and when I played as a child they weren’t exactly difficult games. They consisted of easy journey games where the task was clearly laid out and the goal was achievable with practice. Crash Bandicoot was a favorite of mine. I was able to master it with practice and the collection of various items to improve score and time appealed to my OCD tendencies. However, aside from some hand-eye coordination improvement and honing of problem solving skills I already had I don’t think I have taken anything from those types of games that could be applied to real life. I don’t believe that this is true for all games and for all gamers, just for some of the games that I have played. I have watched people play some hard strategy games, usually shooter games or battle oriented ones, that require more skill than just being able to aim a gun/bow/laser/any other projectile at an enemy. Basically I don’t believe that the claim can be made that all games give the person playing them useful and applicable skills, though those games exist. I mean we all discussed and most of us played the William and Sly game, which I’ll admit was slightly addicting for me, but otherwise games like these are unable to cross the line from time consuming game to useful learning tool.
I feel that video games are a great learning tool that some people abuse. I play almost all types of games, but I tend to enjoy games that focus on strategy more than most. Many games like this don't directly teach things that are applicable to everyday life, they teach skills that can be modified and transfered. Other aspects of games in general are beneficial. For example, playing in 3-dimensional games has helped me learn to visualize things in three-dimensions mentally, something that has helped me greatly with subjects like math and engineering. Playing online and computer games has also led to me learning basic computer programming skills, and generally has made me more adept with a computer, which is something that is extremely important in today's society.
To counter this, I do think that some people use games incorrectly, and play them somewhat mindlessly, at which point they are no longer getting anything out of it but a way to kill time.
Post a Comment