Shortly after the recent electical failures in the eastern US and Canada, the following image was circulated on several educational listservs.
Later, this image was reported to be a fake. Actual before and after images are available from Canadian Geographic and NOAA.
There is probably a good object lesson in this – things get faked on the net and knowledgeable people get taken in.
I have long been interested in the potential of computer games. My early experiences with computer-based technology originated from my research interest in the development of reading comprehension and comprehension monitoring skills. Students and I programmed text-based adventure games that we felt were appropriate for upper-elementary students. We studied how good and poor readers performed in “playing” these games, whether students would be motivated to play these games voluntarily, and how their game play improved with experience. I guess the logic of our efforts was basically that the more reading you do the better you get at reading and also that adventure games offered an authentic setting in which understanding has immediate consequences. I think these are still probably good ideas. At some point, my work with technology moved in a different direction and the standard for what would be regarded as an “interesting” game increased beyond my programming capabilities.
From time to time I have read articles related to “games.” For example, Tom Malone published a “theory of intrinsically motivating instruction” in Cognitive Science (1981) using examples from computer games (yes 1981 is not a typing error). I just finished a book by James Gee – What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (Palgrave MacMillan, 2003) that I recommend. The book is an interesting combination of descriptions of Gee’s personal experiences in gaming and the “gaming community”, analysis of gaming experiences couched in learning theory, and contrasts between “school experiences” and gaming experiences in meeting ideal conditions for what I would call “meaningful learning.” Gee and I have different ways of explaining authentic or meaningful learning, but if you have read our book and then take my recommendation and read Gee, you will see substantial overlap in the work we cite. The book is organized around 36 learning principles that exist in good games and perhaps should exist in the classroom.
I was somewhat inspired by this book (the anecdotes about game play) and now own not only the book, but also Warcraft III and several other games. I think this area deserves serious consideration. The Gee book may be a little heavy for casual reading, but there is a great deal here to consider and discuss.