Can learning be both educational and fun?

Proponents of digital game-based learning seem to think so. According to the article “Gaming In Education” by Wylie Wong featured in EDTECH magazine, educators from the University of Minnesota have created a computer game that allows students to hone their journalistic techniques by simulating reporters covering a disaster. The game was designed to be not only entertaining but also an informative, interactive experience that would engage the student’s interest. Similarly, in North Carolina an economics professor offers an entire course based on a computer game which he invented to teach microeconomics. The class is quickly growing in popularity, although some students still complain that doing homework is no fun, regardless of the presentation.

As a lifelong devotee of video games, I can only wholeheartedly endorse the efforts being made to embrace games as a valid form of learning. While I agree that some games can be mind-numbing, repetitive and wholly unsuited to any academic endeavor, I believe that computer and video games have a lot of untapped potential to inspire learners. Monopoly, Risk, chess, and checkers are all examples of games that are socially accepted as being able to teach strategy; why should computer or console-based games be any different?

Electronic games carry such a stigma because the older generation fails to understand or fully appreciate the potential of digital-based games due to their own unfamiliarity with technology. I’ll concede that the games most popular with youth tend to be very adult-oriented in content which (perhaps rightly so!) scares adults into thinking their children will grow up to be psychopathic murderers; however, like anything in life, there will always be potential abuses. What we need is some more open-minded investigation of the educational potential of game-based learning. If the market for educational games increases, more and more games will be developed to satisfy intellectual needs in addition to the desire to kill twelve zombies with a chainsaw.  

Look, no matter whether you agree with me or not, it won’t change the fact that people like to have fun. Naturally, a student is more inclined to learn material that is presented in a fun and engaging manner rather than listening to boring old Dr. Dullhammer drone on about different measures of elasticity. Students want to play; they want to interact with their environment. Most young animals learn about the world from exploring and playing with one another– why should humans be any different? Richard Van Eck from the University of North Dakota notes that “[r]esearchers have also pointed out that play is a primary socialization and learning mechanism common to all human cultures and many animal species. Lions do not learn to hunt through direct instruction but through modeling and play. Games, clearly, make use of the principle of play as an instructional strategy.”

The pedagogical process is outdated. People rarely enjoy being lectured at, and studies show that we are more likely to remember an enjoyable interactive experience rather than being spoken at for an hour or more. Requiring students to get involved in the process of their education not only engages their interest, but alsoteaches them important life skills.  I hope that more and more interest will be generated regarding game-based learning so that we can reinvent education into a fresher, more exciting and relevant process. 

Yes, folks, learning CAN be both educational and fun.

Wong, Wylie. “Gaming in Education”. EDTECH: Focus On Higher Education (May-June 2007)http://www.edtechmag.com/higher/may-june-2007/gaming-in-education.html

Van Eck, Richard. “Digital Game-Based Learning: It’s Not Just the Digital Natives Who Are Restless”. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 41, no. 2 (March/April 2006): 16–30. http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/DigitalGameBasedLearningI/40614

So much technology, so little time.

The article “Wikis and Podcasts and Blogs! Oh, My! What Is a Faculty Member Supposed to Do?” by Patricia McGee and Veronica Diaz is accurate in its portrayal of the confused climate surrounding the integration of new technologies into the classroom. Dr. Leigh Ryan, Director of the Writing Center and professor of English and Women’s Studies, agreed that many professors are intimidated by the sheer volume of educational technology available. Dr. Ryan is eager to experiment with different applications, but she is  unsure how these new technological approaches will make teaching more efficient and effective. Like the faculty members described by Diaz and McGee, Dr. Ryan belongs to a more mature age group that is more  unfamiliar with technological advances when compared to the iPod-wielding, Facebook-obsessed students of today. “Wikis and Podcasts and Blogs!…” attempts to address a very relevant concern among many faculty members in higher education today.

While the article gives some relevant and helpful advice, I disagree that the identification of a problem or need in the classroom must necessarily come first before reviewing available technology. By observing the creative ideas and innovations of others, we can come up with new solutions to problems that perhaps we never knew existed. One of my jobs as an UTAP apprentice will be to brainstorm with the instructor on various ways to improve the pedagogical process by bringing my research of the functions and benefits of different technology that we’ve learned about in class.

Although I disagree with McGee and Diaz’s approach to problem-solving, I do, however, agree with their insistence that the professor always be aware of his or her audience. Though implementing new technology within a classroom environment will always be somewhat of an experiment, a faculty member should be able to identify what might be informative and entertaining based upon their lecture content and their personal style of teaching.

Overall, the strength of the “Wikis and Podcasts!…” article lies in making explicit what should be rather intuitive; that more technologies exist than professors know how to utilize, that an age gap exists between the young and older in terms of exposure and technology use, and that instructors need to assess and adequately support their technological endeavours. Not particularly useful, but provides a good insight into the problem of incorporating technology into the classroom today.

The PowerPoint Era: A New Gilded Age?

Ian Parker’s article “Absolute PowerPoint”, featured in the May 28,2001 issue of The New Yorker, criticizes the increasing prevalence of using PowerPoint as a standard method of teaching in the academic and business environment. A few years before Tufte’s proclamation that “PowerPoint is Evil”, Parker warns against PowerPoint’s usurpation of traditional communication and points to its oversimplication of information and inherent commercialism.

Both authors write that due to the visual aesthetics of the medium, the information included on a PowerPoint slide must be condensed to fit onto the slide in a punchy and concise manner. Many subtle details necessary for a thorough grasp of the concept are left out in favor of 20 word bold print summaries. Some firms, Parker writes, have adopted policies as to how many bullets are allowed per slide, and how many words per bullet. While these companies may believe that these condensed slides are more managable for their audiences and speaker alike, Tufte sees this “convenience” as a more insiduous “[elevation] of format over content [...]“.  The emphasis is shifted from the actual message to how effectively the message is visually portrayed. Hence, each PowerPoint presentation becomes a sales pitch that attempts to establish its authority through appealing graphics and a clean layout. Who cares if the numbers on the graph are wrong, so long as the graph looks shiny and professional?

The climate of commercialism which PowerPoint inculcates is perceived by Parker to be yet another feature of the growing social isolation created by technology: In darkened rooms at industrial plants and ad agencies, at sales pitches and conferences, this is how people are communicating: no paragraphs, no pronouns-the world condensed into a few upbeat slides, with seven or so words on a line, seven or so lines on a slide. And now it’s happening during sermons and university lectures and family arguments, too [...] Instead of human contact, we are given human display. “

 It’s difficult to argue with Tufte and Parker. PowerPoints are seductively clever and deceptively manipulative. It’s hard to argue with the authority of the PowerPoint slide– it’s written oh-so-boldly and succintly, it must be true– and thus eliminates the engaging of dialogue between the presenter and their audience. Students simply copy the bullets verbatim into their notes, an act which could be have been done just as easily at home. Why pay to attend a lecture when you could download the PowerPoint presentation instead? I have noticed professors that just read their slides aloud, not elaborating upon the bullet points but rather going through their presentation in class. It often feels like not only a waste of time, but a waste of resources. If my professor has a wealth of knowledge about 18th century English literature, I want to know the more in-depth nuances of the subject, you know, the stuff I can’t download on SparkNotes. (Not to mention, PowerPoint lacks all of the charm and humor of an engaging professor)

I truly believe that while PowerPoint operates under the pretense of convenience and efficiency , it is essentially a marketing tool that caters to our increasingly attention-deficient, communication-phobic society. I will grudgingly concede that an application can rarely merit the term “evil”, unless it perhaps featured pictures of people killing dogs and bunnies.  People, and their reductionistic, lazy impulses, are what makes PowerPoint such an ineffective tool for learning. Feasibly, PowerPoint could help stimulate the audience’s memory by imparting visual cues along with concise data; it could make note-taking easier for those students who never venture from the back row. And the idea of selling an idea through simple, easily digestible terms is hardly a new idea: Thomas Paine persuaded many colonists to support the American Revolution through his easy to read philosophical pamphlet ”Common Sense”. While history shows that Paine was on the right side, centuries later we are still in danger of being seduced by complex ideological issues packaged in oversimplified rhetoric.

Perhaps Tufte’s article should read “PowerPoint is Potentially Evil” and Parker’s “Absolute PowerPoint” could be changed to “Absolute PowerPoint (Corrupts Absolutely Sometimes)”.

Parker, Ian. “Absolute PowerPoint”. The New Yorker. 28 May, 2001. Rpt. in http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/group/powerpt.html