Write a short critical/analytical blog piece (formal style) that – based on the readings – articulates some connections between the authors’ critique/s of standardized forms of schooling/education and the radical opportunities of games-based learning and/or a learning informed or driven by ‘serious play’ (you will have to define ‘serious play’).
Expectations: Support your discussion with quotes from at least two of the readings and try to connect the theory in the readings to 1) your own experiences learning with/in and through games, or significant learning in the key of ‘serious play’ (which might not have anything to do with formal games), and/or 2) to your own critique of standardized schooling forms.
Due by Next Monday (400 words min).
The first reading on Serious Play by Jenson, offers a rare insight into the development or rather lack thereof of engaging and entertaining gaming for education. It would seem the main dilemma with actually producing a game of magnitude specific for education is that the people in charge of these projects often lack any connection or insight into the youth of today. “Of significance…. is how often the ‘subject’ of this research (the game or the players themselves) is researched and written about with little, if any, consideration of context and culture” (Jenson, 3). This simply mimics a lot of how society is governed. Politicians with no context of life make broad decisions with far sweeping consequences for millions without knowing or understanding the issues. Education is guilty of this too, far removed from being a child and far removed from the 21st-century progressive logic, we often fail to comprehend and produce material that is engaging. From my education as a teacher, you are often told if the student is not engaged it is your fault, you are the one who has to work your ass off to make sure to promote and teach the material as best you can, almost like a clown, or an actor. Again failing to assess the situation for what it is, the curriculum needs a drastic overhaul to adequately represent the 21st-century global education. If the material is engaging teaching becomes a lot less stressful.
The first thing the article points out is that 1) the people who do the research hardly if ever play the games, and 2) failure to understand the gaming culture (Jenson, 3). This is a failure to understand the literacy of gaming and its subsequent requirements. “Gaming literacy --- the literacies required to analyse, design, and play digital games” (Apperley, 3).
“This definition of gaming literacy underscores how digital games – including games played on computers, consoles, and mobile and handheld devices – present a complex challenge for researchers and practitioners of education” (Apperley, 3). Another phenomenon that I find interesting is blaming video games for violence and attributing violent behaviour to play. This has been proven false by studies, and it still pervades for some. People need something to blame and place a band-aid on rather then tackle the cold hard truth, that “aggressively policed heteronormativity with its school-sanctioned bullying and rejection and all the other ways that game scripts intersect with school rules, the insistent plot structures of everyday life in blonde, Christian middle-USA, roles of hierarchy, dominance, and subordination, the quiet acquiescence to hyperreal inequalities of family circumstance, support, care, and protection, and the unspoken world of ‘good ole boys’ in which the gun is as foundational a cornerstone of US values as the Bible” (Jenson, 4) is part of the culture of the USA.
I can recall one experience in my first year of education at my placement, I remember I was placed in a Careers class. Now this subject is not only boring for the majority of kids, useless for most (because they are 15) but also to drawn out and can be done in two weeks rather than two-plus months. It also does not reflect a 21st century perspective on education. I remember one student, who was smart. My job was to get those who do not do work to try and do work. I went to this student, who would often time during class writing complex code. This student was to not affected by this course but also realized the pointlessness of it. Not only that virtually in every other subject that he takes he is an 80+ student. I mean every student in the course would mention how they want essentially a six-figure job. Good for them to reach high, but statistically this will not happen, how do the educators not see this and say, “you know this course is not realistic”. The point is that digital is the way of the future, IT is the largest growing industry in today's economy and our education hardly reflects that. Education not only does not educate for the times but also allows widespread discrepancies to flourish.