The Future of Education? Video games. (Duh.)

In last week's Economist an article titled "Games Lessons" appeared in the Education, psychology and technology section.

I have a question, though. Why would saying "the future of schooling
may lie with video games" "sound like a cop-out"? To "cop-out" of
something means to "avoid taking responsibility for an action or to
avoid fulfilling a duty"... so how is using an extremely effective
medium in an educational setting to improve students' learning and
performance... a cop-out?

It seems that the author (not sure who wrote the piece) disapproves of
"transferring much of the pedagogic effort form the teachers themselves
(who will now act in an advisory role)" to the games the students are
playing.

Obviously this author has never been a teacher.

The main focus of the article is on the Quest to Learn
school in New York. One of the theoretical foundations of the Quest to
Learn school rests firmly on the work of James Paul Gee (click here to
see a couple videos I posted a while back of an interview with him),
though James is not directly involved with the school itself.

One of the neatest things about the Q2L school (at least, if you ask
me) is the reworking of the traditional class periods. English?
Science? History? Math? Adios. (No word on whether Spanish is being
replaced.) Here's the PDF
of Q2L's Overview of Curriculum. Really interesting stuff. "The Way
Things Work, Being, Space and Place, and Wellness being just a few
examples of course blocks.

You may be asking, "Yeah, sure, sounds like fun. But what can you
possibly do with an education like that?" Seems that the Q2L folk have
heard that before. Here's a list of Future Careers the school suggests
for graduates:

Urban planner · Organizational Management · Economist ·
Engineer · Scientist (all) · Computer Scientist · Financial Analyst ·
International Relations · Entrepreneur · Business and Finance · Design
(all) · Political strategist · Judge · Sustainability and Environmental
Scientist · Human Factors Researcher · Anthropologist · Writer ·
Investigative Reporter · Learning Scientist · Inventor · Information
architect · Playwright · Actuary · Biotechnologist

Doesn't sound half bad to me.

Anyway, the Economist article does make a good point in that the
level of success will take a few years to find out. The school plans to
admit pupils at the age of 12 and keep them until they are 18, so the
first batch will not leave until 2016. If it fails, traditionalists
will no doubt scoff at the idea that teaching through playing games was
ever seriously entertained.
Let's just hope it does. I mean, what kid wouldn't love a school whose
supply list for the new school year includes a pack of blank CDs, a
pack of blank DVDs, a flash drive (at least 2 gigs) and a pair of USB
headphones.

To keep tabs on exactly what's going on at the Q2L school, check out the Q2L Parents blog. Tell 'em who sent ya.

(Originally posted at Teach Video Games on September 10, 2009.)



http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RyanStraight/20090918/3085/The_Future_of_Education_Video_games_Duh.php

Citação :

Love this question. Just another example of commentary made be people
who are not sufficiently familiar with the media. They hear games and
think either Halo or Pac-Man, when clearly there can be so much more to
it.

The only thing that concerns me about Q2L's efforts and its potential
effect on the perceived effectiveness of games as a teaching tool is
that use of games is not the only innovative facet of their approach.
It sounds like they're trying to redefine the whole educational
process, with their unique curriculum.

Therefore, if the first class they produce in 2016 fairs well or
poorly, it won't be entirely due to the use of games. Yet if they
perform poorly, it could put a dent in the introduction of practical
games into the educational process. And if they do really well, they
may encourage the overuse of games in school.

Regardless, great article. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for Q2L's progress in the future.

Citação :

I'm sure it's the readership of The Economist that prompted the caveat,
"it may seem like a cop out". They'd have to recognize that attitude up
front or loose the some of the readers before the main point is made,
which appeared to at least be open, if somewhat skeptical. For The
Economist, that sounds downright progressive. I wouldn't read too much
into it, but nice rebuttal, Ryan.