The screen has changed from 1982 to 2005.
Our ability to use the screen to interact with materials in an online, adaptive space has grown considerably since 2005 -- obviously this article was written before the release of the iphone and ipad --however, the advances between what was available in 1982 and 2005 were just as mind-blowing in interactive technologies.
Empirical (qualitative and quantitative) studies (both observational and experimental) and interpretative research, including single-subject case and larger scale sociological studies, would benefit from longer term comparative work exploring how game players do learn across home and school.
While an interesting area of study, I am still questioning the relevance in a purely educational setting of the need to bring in a sociological persptective. Unless we are 'using' our educational system as a means of political change? I understand the research in a broad scope to analyze a holistic, cross-cultural effect of media and technology on individuals and society at large, but again, in the learning of reading, writing, and math -- improving the efficacy of the learning is the purpose of introducing technology.
Gee suggests that learning to play the games themselves constitutes a demanding, rigorous (and exclusive) kind of literacy and should therefore in and of itself demand the serious attention of educationalists.
And as the author wrote before, this is truly an area where we have a beginning we can chart. Interactive games are unlike any other medium we have. TV learning is passive and represents simply a different form of life -- even with cartoons -- animated text and nothing more. Interactive gaming and constructing entire worlds that can be manioulated and are - almost - entirely learner controlled is a complete game changer in education.
Furthermore, this reading is demanding, structured, and progressive (in the sense of offering devel- opment), and it can lead to deep or authentic learning.
Absolutely, and contributes to creative thinking and research. Like the Ouroboros - the internet provides for gaming and the resources to learn how to improve and even create compendium of stories for minor characters in games... And communities dedicated to the discussion of the games. (My 9 year old has been playing Mindcraft for years.... It's amazing.)
Educational research on games thus inherited an idea that games "work," and a key research interest in early study revolved around the tricky, commonsense concept of "motivation" or "engagement." Put crudely, popu- lar (and commercially motivated) research has tended simply to celebrate playing games as a "better" motivator than learning in school.
But this is what the literature continues to support -- 'games' are intrinsically motivating because they are chosen by the player. The player learns the game because interest is present. The player continues to play because of ongoing motivation to play through a reward system.
In this instance, findings related to the growing importance of visual data in the creation of personal narratives of everyday life.
Hello Instagram and Snapchat.
A recent European comparative study, for example, suggested that young people 6-16 years old spent on average 32 minutes a day playing games, as compared with 136 minutes watching TV (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003, p. 10).
No surprise that in a 2017 report on media use reports that TV watching and game playing are running about neck and neck now. The full report is here: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/108182/children-parents-media-use-attitudes-2017.pdf
Only in the past 10 or so years have empirical studies of children and young people playing games begun to emerge (e.g., Beavis, 1997, 2001; Facer, Sutherland, Furlong, & Furlong, 2003; Nixon, Beavis, & Atkinson, 2003; Sefton-Green, 2004a), and theorization about both the pedagogy and the effect of game playing is still developing.
There have been a lot of studies since 2005 in this area. Like the work of Mitra in India -- interesting though. Because this may just be the natural evolution of research. Once a baseline can be established in separate silos, the work can then be synthesized to further understanding and develop additional research questions in the 'how' space.
A history of the study of computer games provides an excellent example of both the utopian aspirations for new media and the dystopian apocalyptic sermonizing that characterizes extremes of the literatur
Love this.
This forms part of a more general notion of how it is now impossible to separate assumptions about learning and edu- cation from the wider media culture.
The main idea!
Yet, both research positions are heavily invested in opposing theoretical models of the meaning and impact of media
Aside: YES! The criticism without the balance of an opposing view tends to skew the research even when the research is valid.
The negative thesis of media effects crosses both traditional psychological studies and early critical cultural analyses informed by the Frankfurt school's critique of the "culture industry" (Adorno, 1991).
As does the positive effects. (Sesame Street, The Mary Tyler More Show, The Jeffersons, All in the Family, One Day at a Time, Ellen, Will & Grace, Blackish...)
In addition, more detailed accounts of media use and interaction are undertaken by edu- cationalists, particularly those who approach the challenge of describing and defining learning from sociocultural perspectives.
And how media has influenced that passive learning we all do. The changing of culture through exposure in the media.
This work exemplifies a shift from work on youth as passive consumers to media-producing agents. Both of these areas, I argue, are central to debates about how to remake elements of school- ing, curriculum, and pedagogy.
Yet, as we have read in the past two modules, many theories and strategies exist which we know can improve education systems using technology and creating more learner-controlled educational experiences, but implementing the changes in the system as it currently exists remains a hige challenge. Even 13 years later....
Lawregulatesbehaviorincyberspace.
Just questioning this. Is this true? How can this even be measurable in the vast cyberspace? Regulation exists, but prosecution of violations are typically assigned to threats of governments, organizations, cities or community groups. Laws governing on-ground behavior don't seem to translate to F2F communication.
Normsconstrainthroughthestigmathatacommunityimposes;marketsconstrainthroughthepricethattheyexact;architecturesconstrainthroughthephysicalburdenstheyimpose;andlawconstrainsthroughthepunishmentitthreatens
But how is this affected when only a few understand the architecture, and when code can be hidden so deeply in the cyber world?