Trends in educational games

Games, games, games, don’t we all just love games. Whether 10 or 80 years

old, we all play games. But the question that remains is whether we play

games simply for fun or because we mean to learn something from them.

Gee seems absolutely fascinated by the educational impact games have on

children. He claims that learning is contextualized and meaningful, two key

characteristics of successful learning. They motivate students and through

chat rooms and other teamwork activities, they rely on the social

constructivist approach to solve problems at hand. The behaviorist theory is

less salient in that students will eventually learn some problem solving

techniques through trial and error and drilling. However, ...

Before I state my opinion, I’d like readers to know that I’m an advocate of

games that yield educational benefits; that is benefits usable in the real

world. I personally believe that the video ‘Games Children Play’ lends itself

to a bit of criticism. It starts off very well by explaining how students apply

the laws of physics they (must have) studied in order to win the game.

Others require kids to collaborate in order to engineer a car. My take is this:

Are we sure that students have understood the relevant laws of physics

simply because they managed to win the game? Here’s another example: I

found a game (and played it myself) which is an online simulation called

‘The Parachute’. You’ll find it at

http://puzzling.caret.cam.ac.uk/game.php?game=parachute. In it, kids

have to calculate the right size of the hole in the canopy, given the speed of

the wind and the plane the parachutist is jumping from. I myself managed to

land the (poor) guy successfully after having smashed him against the trees

and on the ground at least 10 times. Now that I’ve landed him successfully

after 10+ trials, am I considered knowledgeable about the laws necessary for

proper landing? Not in the least. I kept on trying until I lucked out. After all,

I knew I was never going to do it in real life, so I just tried different

combinations to go on to the next stage.

I’m aware that games keep kids’ attention at a high enough level to allow

new information to settle in, but if we are to use games, let’s make sure the

only way kids can move on to the next stage or win is by getting the right

answer correctly and not by lucking out, which is probably the case with

engineering the car. Since these games aim at social constructivism, they

should be a means to an end and not an end in themselves. What I mean is

students learn to engineer cars through games so that they get the concept

and apply it in, probably, a car industry some day, and not just to complete

the game.

The boy in the video commented on the part of the game where someone

fires a rocket at someone else and said that he knew he wouldn’t do it in

reality, and that he would simply ‘hit someone on the computer’ to blow off

steam. But how many kids are that mature? I’ve heard of kids fly off

balconies after playing Superman games. The game did teach them a lot of

authentic language and improved their listening skills, make no mistake, but

it also tested their flying skills …

My main argument here is that games should be educational AND risk free.

They should replicate real life in the form of fictitious characters. I still

remember a student of mine who learnt the words ‘Acknowledge’ and

‘Rodger that’ from the game Red Alert. When I reminded him to bring a

poster to class the following day, he said out loud (and proudly, too): Rodger

that, teacher! Sometimes, I wonder if the kids are playing the games or the

games are playing the kids…