In this chapter of his book "What Video Games Have to Teach Us," Gee uses the argument of symbiotic domains to explain that there is opportunity for learning content in video games. Gee defines a symbiotic domain as "an area or set of activities where people think, act, and value in certain ways" (19). One of the major points of the argument is that there are several types of literacies and there are many ways in sing different types of literacy. They "are not just ways of decoding print, they are caught up with ways of doing things, thinking about things, valuing things, and interacting with other people" (18). Through learning in this content, video games can be used as a positive learning experience.
Gee explains that interacting and using your brain to think of a strategy is a great way to learn and apply it to other things in life. By using the content of the video game, social practices can be "generated, debated, and transformed via distinctive ways of thinking, talking, valuing, acting, and, often, writing and reading" (22). Although a child may not be doing anything productive while playing a video game, there are benefits regarding the content that can shape different ways a person can interact in certain situations. Video games can help a user learn different meanings to things through the way that they understand and integrate the symbiotic domains of the game they are playing.
The overall point that Gee makes in this chapter is that video games are not a "waste of time." In regards to the child playing Pikmen, "the boy is encouraged to see himself solving problems from the perspective of a particular fantasy creature...He is also encouraged to focus on the problem solving..." (36) which can be a learning experience he takes and uses in his everyday life. Gee concludes this chapter with the five principals that is relevant in learning in video games and in content in the classroom. These five principals include: Active Critical Learning; Design; Semiotic; Semiotic Domains; and Metalevel Thinking About Semiotic Domains.
Extra Summary about Gaming Experience
For the gaming experience required in this class, I chose to play William and Sly (http://www.kongregate.com/games/Kajenx/william-and-sly). In this game you play as a fox, Sly, and you help William complete different tasks, such as collecting fireflies. I do not usually play video games, so this was not an appealing experience for me. I can see how some people may become addicted to video games, and I think that would not be a positive thing to happen. So while video games are good for some people, it is definately not my thing.
Inquiry
I agree with Gee that there is some learning experience in playing video games, but I also think that it can be a waste of time. There are several cases where people play video games instead of doing something that is more important, such as homework. There are also many video games that do not contribute to a positive learning experience in a direct way. Shooting games such as Call of Duty do not give direct learning experience, although there may be some problem solving involved, there are definately better ways to get this content using another form of literacy than a video game. Video games are entertaining and there is no reason why they should not be played, as long as it does not become an addiction or stop you from completing more important tasks. Some questions brought up through Gee's chapter and my experience playing the online games are:
1. Are video games a good and realistic way to experience the real world? Why or why not?
2. When is playing video games too much?
3. Is video gaming a good way to interact with others, or does it create more of a negative aspect on a users social life?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Gee's chapter about video games not being a waste of time did not open any new doors to me. I know some games are helpful while others are basically pointless. I do believe most things video games teach can be taught in the real world, but for some people, video games teach it better. They can teach to multi-task or to communicate but reality does that too. I also played William and Sly and found it to be a waste of my time. I felt that all I was doing was running around hoping to find a mystery hole or a hidden key. Video games are not my cup of tea, but I understand that some people like them just as I like being social in the real world. As long as video games do not control your life and deprive you of food, sleep, etc. I say game on.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Gee in that video games do teach some skills such as multi tasking and problem solving. It is very useful to have a resource that teaches these skills in a fun and entertaining manner. Video games are very interactive and are a great learning tool for kinesthetic learners. However, I do not believe that video games are a good way to experience the real world. I have witnessed friends take refuge from the real world in video games. They prefer the game over real life. I feel that once a person uses video games to avoid the reality of their lives, the game ceases to be a positive tool for learning, socialization, and entertainment. Thus, games are not a waste of time as long as they are played in moderation and never used as a means to avoid reality.
ReplyDeleteBrittney Beck
I can see the benefits of video games outlined by Gee, however I think they should be classified strictly as means of entertainment, not as a learning tool. By Gee's five principles outlined by Spencer, Active Critical Learning, Design, Semiotic, Semiotic Domains, and Metalevel Thinking About Semiotic Domains, I think most TV shows would meet those qualifications to become a positive tool. The TV shows are examples of entertainment, where one can get lost in for hours and distract from doing work, school work, etc, much like video games. However, learning problem solving skills from video games, or watching a medical TV drama cannot possibly compare to active learning such as reading or cooperative learning with their real-life peers. Though, people playing video games could be accessing a wealth of information and skills which could stimulate their brains. Gee's reading and inquiry was not necessarily an argument determining if video games were good or bad; it is using video games as a substitute for physical interactions that could be detrimental to learning. I think Brittney made a valid point stating that games should be played in moderation.
ReplyDelete-Ellen Le
Everything in moderation, as the saying goes. As the previous posters have commented, this old adage is certainly true for video games. They are not a waste of time, however there is no doubt that there are better and more productive ways to spend one’s time; there is a happy medium. Video games are first and foremost a source of entertainment, and in many cases they have artistic merit, be it through their game design, story themes, music, etc. I played William and Sly as well, and I found it to be an enjoyable way to relax. I certainly did not start playing it with the expectation that I would be spending quality time in the traditional sense, but I find that playing video games(of all types) is usually a cathartic experience for me, provided that I don’t let them get in the way of other important work.
ReplyDeleteReferring back to my earlier point about the happy medium, there is a point where video games can damage one’s social life, and even one’s social skills in general. There are some games that offer a social experience, like MMORPGs, that can be rewarding, but the emphasis should still be on maintaining valuable social relationships with people in your non-virtual world. I have been an avid gamer for a long time, and while there are times when I get together with friends to play video games and enjoy myself, I have found that it can prevent me from having healthy social interactions. It can be all too easy to sit around my house/room and never make an attempt to socialize with my family and friends.