Is something supposed to load under the 3 bullet points? I see a 'loading circle' but nothing is popping up.

Great idea to allow for each type of style to offer strengths and viewpoints!

Well put.

Eye opening statement to me around a few students I was in discussion around this past week. In particular that they seem to be capable of more than they are demonstrating and their frustration and lack of attention in school unless it's a subject they are interested in, which is when they show much higher participation and grades dramatically improve.

Pretty much the antithesis of traditional schooling.

To a large degree, I believe this is the reason traditional schooling is in crisis.

Another great point I've never thought of before, and it is one that makes sense (with some serious gamers I've met and worked with). Great insight!

This is a great observation, and another great skill. Although the winning is everything is not necessarily a great way to look at the world, as it could produce extremely selfish individuals who will do anything to win. While having a balanced decisive view willing to make a choice and commit is a great skill to have.

A valuable lesson to learn as a youth as well, and one I didn't learn (even though I did play video games in my youth) until I was in my 20s. This lesson being learned young will hopefully lead many more youth to a less stressful and to feeling more successful in their life over all.

This is a great point as well, since we learn from failures! I really like this point and hope this means that our students are growing up without the same fear of failure as many older people might possess.

Sadly, I have seen too much of this mentality in a few younger individuals where they don't work as much in team. I wonder if it is the type of games they preferred to play? Interestingly, I do know that a few of these individuals preferred solo games mostly or with small teams of people they know well and where they do not need to necessarily play as a team. This is a point I would like to further explore that I hadn't previously thought of.

Gen Xers first video game generation? Millennials in a different more interactive and higher percentage than Gen Xers. Current young students are growing up with technology in an even more present way. Here's an interesting article on the subject.

I believe this is an important point. Many of our current business and school leaders likely grew up with television with minor video game play on old gaming systems. The skills and perspectives created from these experiences are completely different.

I have run into this perception when discussing games within the educational classroom. It is challenging to approach this mindset and begin to shift it.

Fascinating and important stat. I'm sure this is even more so now 13 years later!

Now that many teachers are from the gaming generation, I think this shift is happening. However, many schools and districts are still run by non-gamers. Could this be part of the reason for the turmoil around games and learning in the classroom?

I have noticed for some non-gamers this is a difficult transition. As things start to shift, hopefully non-gamers will be able to adapt. There will be some friction during this transition time. Hopefully, too, gamers will be able to gain some skills and incorporate skills from their non-gamer peers that might also be helpful?

I'm interested to see how this shifts over time, and believe in many ways we're seeing this more now since this article was published 13 years ago. The topic interests me as in my school, we now have several teachers from this generation wanting more technology in the classroom to teach their students. I am interested to see what findings this article had from 13 years ago versus what I am seeing in my school today, as some of the teachers would have been in middle or high school at the time of the study.

Presentation by John Beck on this topic

I am glad they mentioned gaming balanced with instruction, because serious games on their own (like online school only) has also been shown to be less impactful on student learning. Facilitators/guides are still needed.

I disagree with this reasoning on why they say that traditional classroom instruction is less effective. Another thing I disagree with, while my school is somewhat traditional in teaching, prior to this year there has not been much technology used within the regular classroom. It has not strictly been lecture style, however, and students have been engaged and learning (according to state testing) in the top percentage of our state. Our current school year is the first year with more technology, not quite 1:1 but more accessible technology, and motivation levels have not changed. I'll be interested to see how we compare on state tests over the next couple of years as we do bring in more technology, but I do believe it's a bigger issue than our dependency on technology making traditional classrooms less impactful.

I agree with this.

Again, by the definitions I have found on serious games are games without the entertainment.

According to a couple of sentences prior to this one, the authors are comparing the way they think kids like video games and looking to serious games to bring in to schools to fulfill this need hoping it will motivate kids to learn. However, 'serious games' are games not meant to entertain, although I think they can definitely be engaging to students and encourage learning.

I completely disagree with this blanket statement. My boys, who love to play video games, also love to read books. They don't like to do homework, but I also didn't like to do homework when I was their age.

An important point found in this study by Granito et al (2012) is students need to be intrinsically motivated and interested in order for learning to occur with technology as well.

Peter Diamandis spoke about this two years ago to the California Charter School Conference. Fascinating video that is worth watching!

I would love to know what age range, gender, race, socioeconomic status etc. they looked at in their study.

I am very interested in reading about video games in the classroom potentially increasing motivation because most studies I've read about games in classrooms not showing an increase with motivation. Most recently in this study by Wouters et al (2013).

Here's a resource I like where they evaluate the term "serious games".

This title captured me as I have had numerous discussions with people wondering why I'd like more technology in our school when people feel children are already on technology (or want to be) too often.

This is a profoundly important statement. How do we teach students to interact and therefore learn on a deeper level within the classroom?

Here's an interesting article about this.

Another crucial 21st century skill.

Collective Intelligence is being studied at MIT

Collaboration is a strong tool and has been identified as one of the ISTE Standards for today's students.

Another standard for 21st learning that goes with collaboration (in a sense) is mentioned by Katie Salen, Systems Thinking. Students work together to solve problems.

James Gee also talks about how games are hard and complex, and yet people PAY to play them and learn and enjoy it! He goes on to talk about how good games have good learning principles supported by cognitive science.

James Gee (mentioned further in this article) discusses how humans love learning, but you might not know that within a school. If schools are designed with learning in mind, wouldn't we want students (and teachers) to enjoy it?

I can't find any specific research saying boys typically read a couple of grades below school level, can someone please share those with me? I did find many studies on why it's not beneficial to force students into reading levels, including this one from last year while trying to locate studies on this subject.