Level 9 - Diminishing the Digital Divide revisited - Games to bridge the Generation Gap

Articles by Prensky, Oblinger and Squire, a recently published Demos article entitled 'Their Space: Education for a Digital Generation' (Green and Hannon, 2007), plus several other commentators, all highlight a significant difference between current generations in terms of their familiarity with computers, the internet and technology (or lack of it). This raises important issues for educators at ALL levels, in particular how these technologies can be put to best use in order to engage students without creating a 'digital dependence' where human relationships and overall learning might suffer. One way of engaging both students *and* teachers with digital technology is through games - and it is a potential that games have to bridge this divide that I want to explore further here.

To recap briefly on this digital disparity, Oblinger draws up 3 general but useful distinctions between generations and their understanding and comfort with ICTs (this includes internet use): Boomers, the 40+ age group, might be classed as 'digital migrants', or those who did not grow up surrounded by computers and associated technology, but had to learn about them at a later stage; Gen-Xers (which I fall into) who were the first generation to grow up with (albeit rudimentary) computers and who are the first 'digital natives'; and Millenials, or 'digital natives 2.0' who were born after 1982, and who are completely au fait with computers, internet and associated linking gadgets such as mobile phones, iPods etc. Millenials have also been classed as Generation-C - where C stands for Content - meaning that for this generation, creation of 'consumer generated content plays a significant role in their social life, generating streams of new text, images, audio and video on an ongoing basis'. These characterisations are extremely useful for educators of the Boomer generation who wish to better understand and inform the younger generations, and to an extent vice versa.

If responsibility to adapt rests with one generation more than another, it must surely be more with teachers than with students (though teachers will probably disagree), as digital proficiency is becoming the dominant paradigm. When pupils enter the job market, a large number of roles (in developed countries at least), will involve some basic technological know-how. So for teachers to do their job well nowadays, it's becoming more necessary to adopt methods that inform and appeal to what might be termed the "information-age mind-set." As Oblinger writes, 'the attitudes - and aptitudes - of students who have grown up with technology appear to differ from those of students who rarely use technology." She cites Jason Frand, who lists ten key attributes of this emerging mind-set: "[1] Computers aren't technology; [2] Internet is better than TV; [3] Reality is no longer real (re: potential inaccuracies of digital content); [4] Doing is more important than knowing; [5] Learning more closely resembles Nintendo than logic; [6] Multi-tasking is a way of life; [7] Typing is preferred to handwriting; [8] Staying connected is essential; [9] Zero tolerance of delays; and [10] Consumer and creator are blurring." These all combine to highlight fairly significant changes in how young people process information. Charles Monereo (The virtual construction of the mind: the role of educational psychology, 2004) explains this cognitive change well. "Just as steps from oral culture to written culture and then from writing into printing had clear repercussions for forms of learning and thinking, the transition from the printed culture to this new digital culture will have diverse consequences for our cognition". As Prensky has also recognised, DN's cognitive processes have been moulded by their immersion in a digital environment.

In particular, point [4] above marks a giant step, where knowledge accumulation needs no longer be a principle goal of education, as information can be easily accessed and needn't necessarily be stored in an individual's brain (see Gee 2003 on *distributed knowledge*). Monereo again, describes this distinction, writing that "technological migrants [Boomers] regard knowledge as something that they possess, something that they carry around with them; technological natives [Gen-X onwards] see it as something that they obtain through a set of applications and instruments. This distinction modifies substantially notions such as intelligence, wisdom and ability." This change also has significant epistemological ramifications. Once again Monereo raises this issue. "For the older generation there have always been universal truths, both scientific and moral... But for the younger generation, "everything depends"; all truths are relative and depend on who, when, how, and why they are stated; they are never independent of their utterer or their context." This is a considerable, and I think exciting, philosophical change that teachers must accommodate - teaching that knowledge is absolute will not convince our young learners; they will want to explore the bigger picture, and then make their own minds up. [See the excellent Civil War History Game, cited by Oblinger, which provides students with a broad range of documents relating to the civil war, encouraging them to view sources as a multitude of opinions, not facts, and to synthesize a broad range data to form opinions of their own.]

I also feel that Frand's point [5] above, 'Learning more closely resembles Nintendo than logic', also points to a growing problem that teachers face - how to engage students in ways that complex problem-solving computer games might, with high levels of interactivity, a compelling narrative and a multimedia experience. Recognising and accomodating these changes will I think prove to be an important challenge for teachers over the coming years, moving away from linear, textbook-based learning, to classes that, in Oblinger's words, 'give way to simulations, games and collaboration'. To address this problem, teachers must recognise that Millenials exhibit distinct learning styles, as Clare Raines suggests in 'Managing Millenials'. Millenials' learning preferences embrace "teamwork, technology, structure, entertainment & excitement [and] experiential activities", which differ significantly to those of the Boomer generation when they were at school, which reflected an older paradigm of individualism, knowledge acquisition and rote learning. And here lies a challenge faced by Boomers in management positions in schools, colleges and universities: how can they tailor the way that teaching and learning is presented to engage the students of the tech-generations, while also inspiring teachers of an older paradigm? If they do not, there is a danger of disenfranchising large numbers of young people, and teachers too, perhaps even turning them off from education completely.

If we look closely again at the learning preferences of both generations, we can see them mirrored in the qualities of a well-designed game, paticularly ARGs. *Good* games will often involve teamwork, technology, entertainment, excitement and experience, but *will also embrace* individualism and knowledge acquisition. For examples of such games see The Go Game, Futurelab's Savannah and MIT's Augmented Reality Games, and for a clear example of individualism and teamwork combined, see this BBC article about the winner of Perplex City. Games therefore have the potential to appeal to learning preferences on both sides of the divide, so long as they are well designed. And while gaming is never likely to be the primary pedagogic methodology, games have the (in my limited view) unique potential for uniting both natives and immigrants in a digital and non-digital cause.

But as Squire writes (Changing the game, 2005), 'as challenging as it is to design a good educational game, it may be more challenging to design a good educational system for an educational games to flourish in'. Changes are likely to be slow, but as Green and Hannon point out (2007), change is becoming more necessary. 'In an economy driven by knowledge rather than manufacturing, employers are already valuing very different skills, such as creativity, communication, presentation skills and team-building. Schools are at the front line of this change and need to think about how they can prepare young people for the future workplace.' Squire (2005) also comments on this need for change (citing Gee, Hull, and Lankshear 1996; and Reich 1990), writing that 'learning to identify problems and then devise solutions across several domains is uncommonly found in school, but precisely the kind of skill valued among knowledge workers in the new economy'. With business influencing much of school policy decision-making nowadays (which is another discussion altogether), it is likely that schools will be pushed into better preparing students for this 'new capitalism' or knowledge economy. And the great news for students, which teachers must eventaully recognise, is that digital games appear to instill precisely the qualities that knowledge workers require.

[The UK government recognises the skills required for enterprise which is a step toward the skills mentioned above. See the Determined to Succeed initiative for Scotland's answer to encouraging enterprise, team-working and ambition]

Level 4 - Is playing video games *really* time well spent?

I must admit to feeling slightly guilty for playing video games (VGs) after my teens. As a kid I didn't care, but as I got older and responsibilities started to pop up here and there, the pleasure of spending an afternoon plugged into Mario World or Fifa 2004 became a luxury rather than a pastime. VGs were a kind of junk food that I'd indulge in now and then, but was slightly wary of lest I got too sucked in. Where did this guilt come from? It came mostly from knowing that there were more important things that needed to be done, but also from the general social perception that VGs are a *waste of time*. But have I been right in feeling guilt? Should I have in fact been putting off the so-called important stuff to practice my swing in Tiger Woods golf, or spending my afternoon as Lara Croft? Does playing VGs actually make me smarter?

Greenfield suggests several ways in which playing VGs can develop cognitive and physical functioning, though of course, the skills developed will depend on the game being played. For many action games, the obvious gain will be in sensorimotor skills. With time, finger-eye co-ordination becomes fast and reliable, which even I found after playing PacMan for a while. Greenfield suggest that these skills are important for many occupations and cites Piaget's theory that 'they are the foundation for later stages of development'. However, I somehow feel that this may be over-emphasising the importance of being nimble-fingered enough to say, avoid capture by a hungry ghost, but I take her point that speed of thinking and execution *are* developed to an extent.

The question of transferability of *physical* skills undoubtedly arises here, and I still find it questionable whether improving finger and thumb reaction speed really constitutes significant cognitive development and is really of use in many different fields. Unless the task at hand specifically involves pressing buttons at important moments, I find it hard to accept that playing PacMan leads to useful practical skills. As in other VGs, I find any *physical* development from manual keypads extremely limited: playing golf games does not improve your swing, fighting games do not make you a good fighter, skiing games do not make you a good skier etc. However game developments, particularly in arcades, are more and more incorporating physical input beyond finger and thumb action, such as dancing games on pads, drumming games involving drumsticks etc. These developments are moving towards interaction at a physical as well as mental level, which is potentially exciting. The Nintendo Wii has a number of sports games, which go some way to encouraging physical development. Likewise, biofeedback games have been developed, which encourage the player to control their physical responses. The future of gaming looks likely to involve increased physical interaction and consequent physical learning as a result.

Having said all this, in spite of most games being limited to keypad interaction, there is apparently much a player can learn beyond simple sensorimotor skills. As Greenfield mentions, many games will develop complex inductive skills and spatial awareness for their players. While I didn't get as far as noticing the different movements of the ghosts from my own playing of PacMan, I soon developed greater awareness of how to evade capture. And Greenfield rightly mentions that this problem-solving through induction constitutes much of the appeal of the game. This "process of transforming randomness into order through induction" might even be the very crux of enjoyment from learning - the feeling that by learning how things work, we can successfully resolve problems that come our way is inherently pleasant.

Another skill Greenfield mentions that is arguably developed by playing VGs is what she calls 'parallel processing'. I wholeheartedly agree that children of the digital age are noticeably better at processing multiple inputs. This idea links to Prensky's and Oblinger's articles, in which they note that young people nowadays tend towards 'hypertext' thinking, where they are more comfortable with taking in short but multiple sources of information, and as a result are easily bored by lengthy 'serial' processing. In the wider context of learning, this ability for parallel processing is likely to enable 'bigger picture' thinking, or 'systems thinking', where learners are more able to make links across subject fields, leading to more complex understanding. Greenfield cites experimental work recorded in T.M.Kahn's article (1981), 'An analsis of strategic thinking using a computer based games', confirming that "games that require the player to induce the relations among multiple interacting variables are difficult for many people [and] ... bring about important skills such as flexibility and an orientation toward independent achievement". Thus, not only does parallel thinking lead to complex cognition, it also apparently encourages individual ambition.

So overall, the playing of even simple games *can* and does lead to cognitive development. I haven't even touched on content here, but this is in my view an area where games can really educate. A player of Civilisation cannot help but be informed of names and occupations involved in say, the Roman conquest, or the American war of indepence. Likewise a player of the game Food Force cannot help but absorb details of the World Food Program and the challenges it faces. Even playing a computer golf game helps to develop understanding of factors that come into playing a good round (though unfortunately my handicap hasn't yet borne the fruit of my computer game labours!). So when educational content is combined with gameplay that encourages cognitive development, then the educational impact of games is potentially very powerful. And whilst PacMan may not be an example of such a combination, even the learning to be gained from its relative simplicity points to the enormous potential that well-conceived and constructed learning games might hold.