Panelists: James Gee (professor, Arizona State), Henry Jenkins (professor at MIT, moving to USC), Warren Spector (Creative Director, Disney Interactive, game maker).
Topic of this panel: how games are bringing learning out of schools and into the rest of the world. What can games tell us about how people learn and solve problems.
Gaming today is deeply social — related to the community around that game — who else plays it that you know, people that you meet through playing.
Different types of games require different types of thinking and problem solving.
Traditional schools emphasize individual problem solving. Group collaborations are traditionally seen as cheating. Yet learning is often a highly social activity — games and online activity shows that.
Communities developing social intelligence. People learn the “subject” as well as learning social interaction skills with other people — how to learn from, teach, communicate with, form effective relationships with other people.
Our media are developing a whole ecosystem of social communities around them. Even something like TV which is very linear narrative — there are lots of people in different communities related to a specific TV show, which allows people to have different understandings of the show, and gives people the opportunity to discuss the show, alternative plots, character motivations etc. Different viewers can have very different perceptions of a show, based on their own viewing and their discussions with others/their community.
Traditional story (book, movie, TV) vs game / game play — two different narrative styles.
There are now “game schools” where game designers get trained. It’s becoming a discipline in itself (like there are film schools or creative writing schools). So, going forward, we may see more sophisticated game design because the thinking and skills in the discipline have developed and are being codified and taught. And, we have an audience of experienced gamers/consumers who can use more sophisticated games.
Many applications could benefit from a more “games” approach — such as doing your taxes etc.
There’s an issue with teachers/schools opposing “games” in the school — opposition to “games” and “fun” in school. That idea that school should be “work” and not “fun.”
But in fact — games are “work” — good games are hard and require effort. The brilliance of games is that they make people able to engage with the work in a different way.
Games aren’t about “fun” per se — they’re about “engagement.” Games suck people in — get people into a flow state.
One example: strategy games & others give players a ton of charts/graphs/data, so that people can analyze game play and figure out how to win. It’s the kind of complex data and analysis that are often a negative experience in a formal schooling session.
Big complex games teach people to see the world as a large complex system with hidden rules — that’s the core idea behind science — to figure out the system and the underlying rules.
No, games don’t represent the world fully and accurately — no model or theory does that. “All theories are wrong, but some are useful.”
Some game designers have “unconscious competence” in designing games — they do it, but can’t articulate what they’re doing or why it works.
One issue to consider: what view of the world, what outcome, and what emotional state is a game presenting/encouraging. There’s a lot of opportunity for a wider range of experiences to be represented in games (not just shooter games, car races, etc.)
Flower and Flow — very different game designs/types (from the traditional sense of computer games).
Some leaders / older generation sense the importance of games for learning etc. Henry met a political leader in Latin America who was convinced that World of Warcraft was the future way to educate people in leadership skills.
Playing WoW and other big online gamest has created entirely new communities online / with fewer geographical restrictions.
The book Bowling Alone — described how the bowling game was a location, common activity, place for discussion. Now: WoW and other online games / game guilds / game communities are a new form of civic culture.
So called “serious” game industry — making games for “serious” purposes like health care, civic education, etc. But that field hasn’t taken off / been as successful, compared to entertainment games. Why not? Complicated issue.
Best games aren’t limited to traditional disciplines — best games are non-disciplinary/multiple disciplines. So as long as we think in terms of “a history game” or “a health learning game” that’s a potential problem / obstacle to designing a good game.
In the beginning — “serious” games were designed by academics, who had a very formalized model of learning theory The wrong educational theory results in bad games.
“Game mechanics” – what makes a game effective as a game. This is hard, and many “formal” educators and learning experts don’t know how to do this.
Different attitudes towards making mistakes — when mistakes are penalized, it discourages learning.
Games let you walk in another person’s shoes — you get to be in another place and take action there.
Games allow you to feel guilt — as compared to watching TV/movies. Because games require the player to take action and make choices — the player gets to experience guilt and consequences in a game.
