Choice:
In the video game article, the gamer said a good key quality for games is to give choices. An example being choosing a character and playing that role. If the gamer has more choices, they are more likely to be enticed. The online article suggests the same idea in the classroom. The suggestion is to give students choices that interest them when completing their assignments or projects.
Challenge:
The Video game article mentions challenges in way that leads to participation. If the gamer is not challenged too much but yet enough to be intrigued, he or she is more apt to play. The six c's article has the example of adding small goals to an assignment as the student progress to make it more indepth and challenging, but not to hard or troublesome to complete.
Control:
In a classroom, it is suggested to give the students more control. This could be through learning as in discussion or completing assignments. The game designer does this by allowing the player to design their own characters and levels. Control gives a person a sense of involvement. This can help motivate to completing the task at hand.
Collaboration:
I like the online book when it says that "Vygotsky (1978) theorized that communication and collaborative group work can enhance individuals’ thinking and learning". This can be done in games as well as teaching. Team members can work together to fix a problem or get through a level in a game.
Constructing Meaning:
To me, this ties in with challenge. By setting small goals, the students learn along the way, which I think is what this means. In games, the player can learn useful tactics to get to the end.
Consequences:
This idea ties in with comparing work with others. By comparing with others, students can learn different ways and strategies. In games, this can be tied to the manys ways to complete the level. I thnk of PacMan. There are a lot of ways to get all the pebbles and each person will take a different approach. By watching others, people can learn different strategies.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
VIDEO GAMES AND LEARNING
What do good games and highly motivating workplaces have in common?
According to the article and the video, both places get the attention of the people. A good game designer is able to capture the thought of the consumer while a motivating workplace is a place that people enjoy working at rather than going to a strict environment. Also good games and highly motivating workplaces push people and keep the goals challenging for the people. For some reason, most people like that and it makes life more interesting to them. At least for me that is the case. I want to excel at my job and I try my hardest to do so.
What is the difference between learning in school and learning in good games that intrigued you the most?
Learning in school is where I received the most valuable and reusable information. Whereas learning in games I didn't really get a lesson. The games I chose were the ones that you had to complete like X-men and Pokemon. The lessons I did receive were about perseverance and commitment. Those are important to learn, but as I said most of the key values I learned were taught to me in school. These included were communication, group work/collaboration, and arithmetic.
Should learning in school be like learning in good games?
This question is a fence question, it can go both ways. Yes I do feel the guy in the article we read had a good point. Good games are able to interest people in a way that school doesn't. And it is that interest that teachers need to learn in order to maybe help students learn. Now the classroom should not be like a game, but it does need to be interesting, challenging, and all the same fun. So yes I guess learning in a school should be more like learning in good games. But also at the same time learning in school needs to be structured and more involved. Overall if the time taken to create a good video game was put into the teaching field, I feel the teaching community would be greater, and be able to build on what is going on now in the schools.
According to the article and the video, both places get the attention of the people. A good game designer is able to capture the thought of the consumer while a motivating workplace is a place that people enjoy working at rather than going to a strict environment. Also good games and highly motivating workplaces push people and keep the goals challenging for the people. For some reason, most people like that and it makes life more interesting to them. At least for me that is the case. I want to excel at my job and I try my hardest to do so.
What is the difference between learning in school and learning in good games that intrigued you the most?
Learning in school is where I received the most valuable and reusable information. Whereas learning in games I didn't really get a lesson. The games I chose were the ones that you had to complete like X-men and Pokemon. The lessons I did receive were about perseverance and commitment. Those are important to learn, but as I said most of the key values I learned were taught to me in school. These included were communication, group work/collaboration, and arithmetic.
Should learning in school be like learning in good games?
This question is a fence question, it can go both ways. Yes I do feel the guy in the article we read had a good point. Good games are able to interest people in a way that school doesn't. And it is that interest that teachers need to learn in order to maybe help students learn. Now the classroom should not be like a game, but it does need to be interesting, challenging, and all the same fun. So yes I guess learning in a school should be more like learning in good games. But also at the same time learning in school needs to be structured and more involved. Overall if the time taken to create a good video game was put into the teaching field, I feel the teaching community would be greater, and be able to build on what is going on now in the schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)