In past weeks we have discussed whether online classes should replace traditional face to face classes. The more common view seems to be that online classes should complement and enrich classes without completely replacing traditional face to face interaction and instruction. As new teaching methods are developed around new technologies, face to face interaction could be modeled to complement the instruction around new technologies instead of the other way around.
In a recent article, The Economist talks about Quest to Learn, a new school experimenting in this direction. Quest to Learn promotes what they call “gaming literacy” defined as “the play, analysis, and creation of games, as a foundation for learning innovation, and change in the 21st century.” Instead of having usual classes like math, history and English, the day is divided into “domains”. One domain, for example, is called The Way Things Work. There, the students play that they inhabit the minds of scientist and thus learn about math and science.
But even though most of the instruction is done through computers, students do have some face to face interaction, however not in the traditional way. The day includes activities of “human simulation”, where students take the roles of the characters in their computer games. This idea is interesting, since it speaks of “translating digital into non-digital”, as opposed to a traditional classroom with some online instruction, where the non-digital is translated into digital.
The experiment of Quest to Learn gives us much to think about, not only in terms of the dichotomy of the digital replacing the non-digital, but instead of how the new technologies can model the development of new methodologies of education. Do you imagine education can be revolutionized following the concept of “gaming literacy”? What do you imagine?
Maria - thanks for bringing this to our attention.
ReplyDelete"Gaming literacy" seems to be a great way to involve students in learning rather than the traditional face to face methods of learning. Given that technology can be made fun and more interesting for learning, students could be more accepting to this learning method. Experimential learning is now becoming more effective for all learning types of students (those with learning disabilities, ADHD, etc.) and keeps everyone involved.
ReplyDeleteI can imagine the future of education going into the "gaming literacy" especially for elementary education. This will engage students early in their education to the concept of education; especially if this is the future of education. What can be also a consideration for making this "gaming literacy" would be to first test students performance. Some students may not be able to use the same programs as others, given their assessments on learning.
The Quest to Learn experiment is a cool concept. I do not have a background in early education (my undergrad is in business admin./ marketing); this really fascinates me.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like it is taking advantage of the inquisitive nature of children and creating a natural "play" environment.
As far as the digital vs. non-digital world, I support digital contexts as long as interpersonal skills are developed and growth is fostered.
I think the Quest to Learn concept is an interesting concept. I can definitely see the advantages in it. However, I do still think that Quest to Learn should be used to complement class time, and not be used to over take class time. While students may enjoy participating in Quest to Learn more than sitting in class and listening to teachers talk, the fact is, not all students learn in the same way. Some students may simply learn better by sitting in class and taking notes on what the teacher is saying. I think Quest to Learn, can definetly be used as a "break" from the traditional learning environment, but it should not replace the traditional learning environment.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I think eventually more and more classrooms will move to the Quest to Learn or some other Instructional Technology method to be the primary method for teaching children, which is ok. I just don't think we are ready for that right now.
It will be interesting to see, after some time passes, how well these students fare on all of the mandated state and national assessments. My suspicion is that they will do well comparatively as long as the content remains rigorous. It sounds, at least in theory, that they are attempting to teach many skills of a higher executive function nature that I feel schools don't always impart to students as well as they would like due to the nature of traditional schooling that is largely geared toward individual achievement, rather than the higher order skills of cooperative critical thinking/reasoning/problem solving/negotiating, etc., that our increasingly fractious world really needs. You also can't put a price on the motivational factor of the medium of instruction. That alone is worth the price of admission, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very good point you have made, Gary.
ReplyDeleteI imagine that the results of the concepts involved in "gaming literacy" go much further than anyone has perceived.
ReplyDeleteIt brings to mind several questions regarding the overall outcome of the preparedness of these students as they begin their journey in higher education. Will gaming literacy properly prepare them for a successful transition into the traditional college classrooms?
At this point, I do not foresee James Madison University in a position to transform the way our all faculty teach their curriculum by the time these students begin arriving on campus. Will these students be able to adjust to the different teaching styles? Does their immersion into a complete gaming educational program ensure their future success in their employment? Will they be easily bored and frustrated?
A 2008 article on the School Library Journal Web site discusses a program the American Library Association has initiated for tracking and measuring the impact of gaming literacy on students. I imagine it will take at least five years of solid data in order to determine with accuracy both the positive and negative aspects of this instructional technology.
Jackie
I would love to be a teacher or a facilitator at a school like Quest to Learn. I was an early childhood education major and this is exactly how I think children learn to most and the best. There is a program at JMU called the YCP or Young Children’s Program. I worked there for a year and had a blast with the 3-4 year old children. It was considered a “pre-school” but the students were on their own time doing what they wanted. There were so many fun and exciting things for the kids to explore and make sense out of on their own, it was amazing. The program is all about providing these experiences for children and allowing them to make sense out of the world around them on their own time.
ReplyDeleteI think that “gaming literacy” is an awesome approach to early childhood programs. Games teach children the rules of life in a noncomplex way. I do not however think this is a program that children should attend once they reach 1st grade or even kindergarten.
Emmett told me his children are homeschooled and although they are not at home playing games his wife makes their educational experience about observing the world around them and teaching concepts in a practical way for a child.
I think this type of program is something that I would want my children in when they are young!
I have little experience with gaming, educational or not, and do not consider the gaming world as one to which we should be encouraging our youth to enter. I have played with Rosetta Stone’s “gaming” language software and do see how the computer-based learning can be of great benefit when used properly. I take great odds with the public school “which is about to open its doors to pupils who will never suffer the indignity of snoring through double French but will, rather, spend their entire days playing games.” Obviously they have never been to a Rosetta Stone French class. I cannot see how listening to, reading, and conversing with real people can be substituted for by a game, let alone be labeled the “indignity of snoring through double French” class. Perhaps the author’s teachers were not of the best caliber. Or, perhaps the author of Games Lessons never really cared for French at all.
ReplyDeleteWhat comes to my mind is that the gaming lessons would be a great alternative for the student who really does not fit the public high school mode and whose parents are thinking that a life filled with video games is one fulfilled. There are many out there that allow their beloved unfettered access to the Internet, 24/7. Those parents could become full-time teachers too. Nothing new would change in their daily routines, except a pleasant “have fun gaming dear” before they go to bed for the evening. Their student would spend the rest of the early AM hours learning and could finally get the much-needed sleep they deserve during the regular school day. A win-win situation for all. Taxpayer funded? What is next, a meals tax to fund misplaced school buildings? A quick political plug: Vote No on the Rockingham County Meals Tax. Better yet, stay home from voting and work on your gaming class work.
I think the Quest To Learn concept is an unique idea! It is exciting that a school is willing to "go out on a limb" to investigate new ways to integrate technology. I agree that "gaming literacy" is a great method in which students can learn a great deal, but I am not convinced (at this time) that they will gain enough knowledge to prepare them for their next step by the sole use of gaming.
ReplyDeleteThe main concern with using "gaming literacy" as the major teaching method is how long should students be exposed to this method and what happens once they progress further? For example, if students participate in the new Quest to Learn curriculum from age 12 - age 18 how will their education compare to a student who completed a more traditional education? When a student enters college they are emerged into an environment of multiple educational levels. If you come from a small town in which you were the top student, in college you could encounter people that are on your same level but were only in the top 30% of their class. When considering this, how will students who have a "gaming" educational background "size up" to other students?
I am also curious to see the standardized testing scores of the students participating in Quest to Learn. The government has tried to standardize education using No Child Left Behind. I am excited to see if these students who do participate will continue to reach the levels required by students in their grade level.
Overall, I am excited that a school is testing a technology based curriculum! I hope that it is successful not only to help reach all learning styles and levels, but to also open the door for other uses of educational technology in the classroom. The more people who complete this type of research, the more ways we can help teachers understand and become comfortable with using all types of technology in their classroom.
Gaming is really not a revolutionary concept; humans, especially the young ones, have always been "pretending" and "playing". Whether the child is playing school with her friends in the back yard or dealing down a round of gin rummy or plopped in front of a tv manipulating a joystick, the end result is more practice on what it will be like to be an adult. I suppose being an adult includes working with the technology. Being tech saavy is a most important employment skill.
ReplyDelete