Very interesting class today. I was glad to hear both presenters. I am not so excited about what
Barbara talked about with regards to games. I do think that there is a lot of room for games and game play in learning, but the existing games that we have, or that we talked about are based on some pretty unhealthy things. For example:
1. Barbara talked about their use for learning skills vs critical theory, these games seem available to help motivate kids and help folks learn skills and content they are not interested in as opposed to challenging the reasons why we are teaching those skills and content.
2. A quick cursory look at World of Warcraft immediately showed a world of stereotypes. Seriously though there was a lot of stereotypical depictions of the characters as substituting for racial groups. In addition to some pretty heavy racial and cultural stereotypes there was a great deal of content that was quite sexist. This, added to the ubiquitous violence of such games, really makes these things that I don't think that we should be recommending. They are about violence in many forms.
3. So Barbara's answer to all this was that these become good teaching tools because then you can have discussions around sexism, racism and violence about being critical of these aspects. But the games themselves are still not really being used as educational tools. I mean, that is equatable to saying "go watch tv." Now this is not to say that I am opposed to people playing games and entertainment only for entertainments sake, but lets not pretend that just because it is something that kids like it is necessarily healthy.
4. Games are like candy or other hyper rapid feedback rewards. Except folks are being rewarded for buying into socialization around militarism, colonialism, racism, sexism and violence. Even if there are no studies proving that that makes people more violent, I don't know that it is still something that I want to promote.
5. This idea of immediate feedback also encourages external motivation instead of intrinsic motivation. Even if games can help increase problem solving and critical thinking skills, they seemingly are antithetical (at least this World of Warcraft) to critical theory. There is a big difference. Critical theory asks that we try to understand and provide a social critique, while this seems to be a heightened form of socialization into current, dominant norms and values of colonial society. To me, this seems dangerous. Remember video games were initially developed by the US military to teach and desensitize people to killing.
6. The other thing was that she talked about learning about markets, supply demand etc….capitalism. Well WAIT a minute….capitalism is a bad thing and we should be critiquing it not just learning how to play in it.
7. Finally, Barbara talked about marginalized students being able to reinvent their identity. I would bet as someone with power in an artificial world. This doesn’t help to critique or challenge real socialization and power relationships, privilege or white supremacy. I would worry games like this justify privilege and power and encourage marginalized kids to believe in oppressive systems and that they should not only be a part of them, but that perhaps they can steal away some of that power. In the real world how they then see their own powerlessness and inability to gain it, not as a failure of society and systematic oppression but as their own fault and failure as a people. This reinforces the cultural deficit model and decreases any opportunity for social critique.
Matt, I am delighted that you opened this discussion here -- this is great. You raise so many important issues here, challenging us all to think very critically about the implications of virtual games. I share your concern about what some of these games teach, and was intrigued when Barbara shared with us some of the research on this.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think is important as we consider the use of games as educational tools is not to reject the tool (online interactive games) because of how it has been used by some (as in the examples that you discuss here). An analogy might be to reject the use of cell phones because they are used by some for cyberbullying. So my challenge is twofold: (a) we need to seek out ways in which virtual games are being used as effective educational tools (b) we need to encourage the development of virtual games that teach critical thinking and cultural competence. I think there is tremendous potential for this.
I wonder what any of your blog readers know about these sorts of games?
Great critique!
ReplyDeleteWell said Matt. I agree with all the points that you brought up. I think there are skills to learn from video games, but these should not only be the skills that a person has. I know a few boys, and the only skills they have is playing video games. I think it becomes dangerous when this is the only way in which you know how to interact with other people.
ReplyDeleteYou raise some really excellent points. I really respect that you call out the games for what they are, but at the same time, point out that it's not the tool- but the use which merits the most concern.
ReplyDeleteMatt,
ReplyDeleteExcellent points. I agree with Helen, we should not reject these powerful tools, games being viewed as potential teaching tools. I think we need to reinvent ways to use online gaming in areas of social justice and cultural competence advocacy.
Tracy,
ReplyDeleteI really like what you said. I agree and think that things like your app will help to empower people to be more critical of society.
I disagree with Barbara. I believe it is potentially unethical to introduce controversial technologies to marginalized youth as there are non-controversial technologies that can be introduced to marginalized students youth just the same. Why such introductions when non-controversial technologies can instantly benefit marginalized youth, especially if the researcher does not know the long-term effects of the controversial technologies? “Educated” people should leave the testing of controversial technologies to those that are 18-years old and older, where one would like to think they have a better understanding in what they are participating. I believe it is our responsibility as educators when considering an intervention for others.
ReplyDelete