Blog #1

Gee: On one hand, the theory of learning in good video games fits well, for example, with the best sorts of science instruction in schools today. Such instruction stresses strategic thinking and problem solving, often collaboratively. On the other hand, this sort of science instruction is rare and getting rarer as testing and skill-and-drill retake our schools. (4)

Nicoll: Gee is saying that, in the absence of the teacher who wishes to teach their students to actually learn the material for their own personal knowledge, and not just for a certain grade, video games could offer a solution. Gee goes on to say that once a player beats a certain level, the game becomes harder because it is assumed that the player is forearmed with the knowledge of how to overcome the obstacles (p. 34). In the modern classroom setting, teachers are judged by the grades their students receive on standardized tests. Therefore, the teacher begins to teach only what will be on the test. However, once the test is over, the student looses that knowledge because the test is, in fact, over. Gee seems to be suggesting, that since, students seem to be becoming more interested in playing video games, why not let them. If video games are going to help the students’ retention skills and help them to see the bigger picture, then what is the harm of them? The student certainly isn’t going to receive this benefit from the “skill- and- drill” classroom.

Gee: Learners need to be able to engage is words, interactions, and actions that allow them to take on the identity of a “scientist.” But what does this mean? (55)

Nicoll: I agree that video games teach and even promote the “thinking outside the box” mentality that seems to be lacking in today’s classroom. However, to me, Gee seems to be saying that the actual hands- on portions of learning are more important than what the teacher is saying. I feel that the student cannot participate in the practical portion of the class if they cannot grasp what the teacher is saying in the theory portion of class. I agree that the lab section of a chemistry class is important because it allows the student to see that what they are learning isn’t simply speculation, but if they are going to be able to fully participate in the lab, then they must have, at the very least, some knowledge of the chemicals they are using. Trial and error is a useful teacher but if you don’t know where to begin your trial, then you can’t learn productively.

Sorcinelli and Elbow: When students do high stakes writing they often struggle in nonproductive ways and produce terrible tangled prose. When they do low stakes writing, their prose is usually livelier, clearer and more natural- often more interesting- in spite of any carelessness and mistakes. (7)

Nicoll: This seems to go hand in hand with what Gee is saying. Peter Elbow says that low stakes writing encourages individual and independent thought because there is no grade riding on it and therefore, the student is easier able to express themselves. Gee was suggesting that video games provide the same opportunity. Video games allow the gamer to express themselves through the creation of their character. Low stakes writing allows the writer to express themselves without judgment. This allows the writer to say what they want to say and not regurgitate what they think the reader wants to hear for a good grade. Low stakes writing is a way to get away from the “teach for the test” thinking because it is a way of getting the student to learn independently.