EdL 755 - Video Games and Learning review

The preface and introduction to Video Games and Learning begins by debunking the notion that video games are a “fringe medium” (Squire 4), a preconceived notion held by many who were not raised in the era of gaming. Born in 1980, I grew up playing video games and witnessed their integration into American culture. Even at 31-years-old, many of my friends are compulsive gamers, and I too play games occasionally. For the uninitiated, the author uses examples of particular games to emphasize the medium’s emphasis on creating engaging social experiences. Squire writes that games “suggest ways of structuring participatory educational experiences” (15) showing what teachers can learn from gaming and validating the shift toward project-based learning. Games are just one example where students learn more from working through and solving problems than they do from memorizing facts. However, when Squire points to other areas of life where this participatory culture has taken hold, focusing on digital media, he argues that “while schools remain static, learning is changing” (14). Broad generalizations such as this ignore the shifts in educational philosophy over the last decade and discount the progress being made in classrooms around the country.

Squire continues by examining what makes a “good” educational game, devising a strong list of criteria that could easily be applied to other areas of education. Plugging in “group work” to most items on his list shows how relevant and broad these ideas are: Good group work employs academic knowledge as a tool for achieving goals.  Good group work offers multiple ways of [interacting], so that [students] can experiment with a variety of identities in a group. Good group work is social, in that it encourages social interaction of different forms. Good group work inspires creativity and smoothes ramps to usher [students] from users to producers (37). Looking at Squire’s ideas with this mindset helps me to see that good games address many of the same developmental skills as other educational approaches and could achieve better outcomes. The following chapter addresses teaching with games, but it is too short and focuses exclusively on the Montessori system, which the author contends “provides a model of what a game-based learning system should look like” (49). The focus on interest-driven learning is admirable, and educational philosophy seems to be heading in that direction, but I hoped that the chapter would offer more examples of games-based learning rather than focusing on one system. After all, Squire notes that “no system is right for all children all the time” and contends that “it’s the teacher’s job to make [instructional] decisions at the classroom level” (57). It would have been helpful of Squire to offer readers a wider variety of clearer examples of what that instruction looks like.

Squire’s next chapter focuses on the ability of games to create “online affinity spaces” (64) where people go willingly to learn. This gets back to his focus on interest-driven learning because in this scenario, people are actually motivated to seek out spaces to discuss ideas and to learn from each other. The concept of affinity spaces can be harnessed to meet existing educational directives. Recently, Bay Port’s language arts department has discussed the idea that every student in a class should not be forced to read the same book. There has been opposition to giving students the option of choosing a book because of practical hurdles like having the fiscal means to provide these texts, but much of the criticism has also focused on educational concerns. It is true that offering such a variety of texts would disrupt traditional classroom practices, but that disruption may allow students to find a more productive affinity space to learn. Gaming is participatory, the internet is participatory, and the classroom is likewise being dragged into this participatory digital age. There are many web 2.0 resources that could be used in the classroom to accommodate these affinity spaces, but even traditional models like literature circle promote affinity learning.

Squire’s following chapters provide many examples of innovative games that have been developed to help students learn in a participatory fashion in a variety of fields and topics. One idea that piloting these games in the classroom has helped him debunk is the concept that “commercial games have created such a high ceiling that educational games can never succeed” (97). For example, he introduced students to a space simulator called Supercharged! built on puzzle game principles to teach physics and found that students did not immediately bristle because the game’s graphics and production values paled in comparison to mainstream games. However, he found that some students played the game thoughtfully while others played to “win” as quickly as possible (97). I see the idea that kids will only play the most advanced games debunked every day in school as students sneak opportunities to play simple games on their iPods or meet for an after school video game club where their only console is a Nintendo 64. Even though its more graphically advanced successor was just announced, the success of Nintendo’s underpowered Wii console is further evidence that games hold appeal beyond good graphics and violent content.

Similarly, one idea I held about what to expect from this book was debunked in chapter 7 as Squire shares an anecdote about meeting James Paul Gee and discussing with him the impact of games on culture. Squire writes that “James wasn’t concerned about shoehorning games into schools. He wanted to ask how digital media might change schools” (140). Reading the book, I slowly let go of my expectation that Squire would offer ways to integrate gaming into a traditional language arts curriculum. Instead, games provide a different kind of experience that offers a powerful interactive fantasy where students are “actually getting better at something” (161). Games may not be a way to teach literature, but they could be an avenue to allow students who abhor reading to have meaningful experiences similar to students who engage thoughtfully with books. Both mediums promote fantasy, transformative experiences, and blur the line between work and play.  

                

Squire addresses this point further by pointing out that schools “have a tendency to shoehorn innovations to meet the particular constraints of school (45-minute time blocks, local standards)” (212). His book does an admirable job of promoting the ability of games to engage students, to provide them a problem-based medium to solve real-world problems, and to foster communities. His final chapters address fitting this square gaming peg into a round educational hole. The opportunity is there, as he correctly notes that “the economics of textbook publishing […] is flawed” (218), but he also goes on to point out that the strengths of video game-based learning are not measured on traditional standardized tests. This doesn’t, of course, denounce any of the data showing that game-based learning works, but it does show that, like many aspects of education, assessments of learning need to change to keep pace with skills that are relevant to modern times. For games to become part of the system, the system may need to change. More research similar to what Squire provides in his coda may eventually make the case that video games should be an educational tool in schools.