Thinking about learning, education, and schooling brought back flashes of my MAT education courses, as well as, situations experienced as a teacher in a sixth grade classroom. There are a wide variety of ideas about how we learn, what it means to educate, and how "schooling" fits into our world. Education courses teach that people learn "best" in different ways and that their specific "learning style" must be utilized in order for them to fully engage the material. To educate can mean to give information, to guide them in their search, or to simply allow their pursuit. "Schooling" is seen as the presentation of content, giving someone information so that it can be repeated back upon request and possibly applied within a previously practiced context. To my mind, none of these ideas fully engage the learner with the material nor do they encourage the learner to continue exploring without direct prodding.
In my own classroom, I found that students came to me with the idea that they were not supposed to form new opinions about or manipulate the material presented. The statement "tell me what you want me to say," was commonplace. They had been discouraged from using their social resources (friends, classmates, siblings) to help in the learning process as this was seen as cheating. They were told that rote memorization was the best method. Students had learned that finding the purpose or value of material was unimportant, as was retaining the information past the test.
All of these experiences made me wonder why education and learning had to be such a tedious and unpleasant task. The common problem in the classroom is that students have “better things to do” with their time. Often video games are a large part of these “better things” and I had exasperated parents come to me and ask why their child couldn’t “put the same amount of effort into learning as they do playing.” As Gee points out, these two activities, learning and playing, do not have to be separate and in the case of video games are quite simultaneous. The problem parents see, as described in Gee’s example of the grandfather, is the “problem of content.” (Gee 22)
Gee disputes this idea by stating that everything we learn is connected, in some way, to a specific domain. Facts or information is given meaning based on the context within which it is presented. If the context changes, so does the meaning. Students with the ability to regurgitate data but not use it in new situations or understand its principles and characteristics are not actively learning or engaging the material. Therefore, they are not truly learning, they are merely memorizing. They need to understand the situated meaning (meaning within the particular context) of the information and also what ways it is allowed to be used. What is acceptable and unacceptable.
To learn is to engage, transform, and produce appropriately. I couldn’t agree more with his definition. He also takes this one step further to discuss the social nature of learning. Here he discusses how each domain comes with its own set of social practices that shape the way in which the learner interacts with the information. Gee uses the term “semiotic domain” to describe “an area or set of activities where people think, act, and value in certain ways. It is the way in which a specific group assigns meaning to “signs” in the form of words, images, gestures, etc. He gives the example of the legal language. If one knows legal language, but not legal practice then the information is useless. They do not have a way to put the knowledge to use. In the same way, if we give students information, but do not allow for its use in a realistic setting, it is of no value.
Gee refers to content as internal domain and “the typical ways of thinking, acting, interacting, valuing, and believing,” and the associated social practices as external domain. (Gee 28) People within a said domain begin to incorporate into their identity aspects drawn from the content, as well as, the social practices of others within their affinity group. As social practices change so does the content, because each shapes the other. The affinity group creates an identity, a set of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, values, thoughts. The content around which the affinity group forms will have to be changed and adapted as the group changes. In addition, if the content changes, and it is deemed a positive change, then the affinity group will also have to adapt.
Video games force players to “think about the world in new ways.” (Gee 31) They provide a platform, a domain, within which learners are presented with information, allowed to use it, and given new situations within which they can apply, expand or abandon their previously learned strategies. They learn to solve problems, to view mistakes as attempts rather than failure, that sometimes a mistake can present new options or combinations for existing information. The player develops strategies that can not only translate to the classroom, but to lifelong learning. These strategies implant themselves in the player’s identity. The player sees himself/herself as one who can, for example, solve problems, work through puzzles, explore with positive results, and make mistakes without failing.
Discussion Questions:
1. Can identifying with one particular affinity group determine your future decisions and thereby dictate the direction your life takes?
2. Do current negative opinions of gamers limit the number of people who participate in gaming? And could this be detrimental to those who would have possibly benefitted from the early formation of problem solving strategies and positive personal identities?
3. Does the time consuming nature of video games serve as a positive or negative given the fact that it encourages extended focus, but also discourages certain other healthy activities?
No comments:
Post a Comment