Well it's been a thoroughly engaging few months for me, covering a whole host of topics and areas, not just related to gaming, but also to internet technologies and functions, online collaboration and to literacy and learning as a whole. I can honestly say that I have had no greater desire to learn about and understand a subject - perhaps because it interests me greatly, perhaps because of the enthusiasm of other members and moderator of the course, or perhaps from the intentional design of the course to encourage these features - but probably a combination of all three. Here I hope to review my original aims for the course, and some persistent themes that have arisen in my weblog - I'll finish briefly with some possible future directions.
In terms of original aims for the course, I was particularly interested in how computer games might be used alongside f2f group teaching/training. I had initial reservations about people, especially children, spending so much time physically isolated from others in front of a screen, and wanted to find ways to incorporate digital technologies and f2f group activities. I was thoroughly pleased to be introduced then, to the concept of ARGs, which integrated online collaboration and often group activities too. Games like The Go Game, Augmented Reality Games, 'Big Games' and even the concept of Smart Mobs all combine technology features with personal collaboration and learning. The step that ARGs take, from full fantasy, to semi-real, semi-fantasy (or 'real-play' as opposed to 'role-play' in McGonigal's words) is for me a significant motivation for exploring this field further, and the scope it has for engaging learners in collaborative ways.
This is not to say that I haven't also learned to appreciate the value of single-player, screen-based games. Through a focussed enquiry into the game *Civilisation IV*, and the writings of Squire and Gee in particular, I have come to realise the significant potential that video games, especially simulation games, have for providing learners with a fully immersive environment in which to learn about subjects. In such games players are free to make choices, make mistakes, and act as if they really *are* the game's protagonist character, encouraging meaningful, embodied action of direct relevance to the player. This is in my view an enormous step forward from a simple text-based pedagogy. The thoughts and experiences of Sasha Barab and David Shaffer were also very helpful in coming to appreciate just how valuable learning in an immersive game environment might be, as they both express eloquently how a game with well-designed learning intentions might not just teach a player facts about a subject, but require the player to be a *practitioner* of that subject.[This NML webcast was fascinating in this respect]
In terms of continuing themes, one that has consistently arisen, both in this course and the previous (IDEL), is the Digital Native vs Digital Immigrants debate. Through this study of games I have come to realise that this gulf is perhaps even wider than I had first appreciated, and this point is relentlessly drilled home by Gee's analysis of where schools are failing engage learners in the way that good video games do (see previous post). However, as I argued previously, I believe that using games and digital simulations may be one way of diminishing this divide. Utilising the inherent appeal of good, well-designed games will inspire students to learn using technology they are accustomed to, while also introducing older generation teachers to digital age teaching technology.
Another theme that has persisted throughout this course is what constitutes a *good* game. From readings by traditional play theorists to modern-day digital game designers, it is clear that the features that make a game enjoyable and fun to play have not suddenly changed in the digital age. Elements of fantasy and challenge, while not always necessary, seem to be in most cases a common factor for the game's appeal. Likewise, ensuring that the challenge is not too easy, nor too hard, seems to be an enduring problem for game designers, very much like it is for teachers who are planning their lessons.
As a meta-reflection on the game-centred design of this particular course, it has been fascinating for me to actually experience the potential for GBL, by carrying out game-like tasks, using Second Life, Google Earth and WebQuests. It was interesting to experience directly the motivational draw that such tasks inspired in me, and most of the time I forgot that they were actually *learning* tasks. The subsequent discussions that ensued from these tasks where on balance highly entertaining, and rather than distracting from the intended learning, actually encouraged (for me anyway) further subject enquiry. As a teaching model this is potentially extremely powerful.
I'd like to reflect finally on the game design task, in which Andrew Sides and I created the ARG *Tomorrow Calling* (which should be ready for 'launching' soon). It was and still is (as I had feared it might) a challenging and painfully creative, yet hugely rewarding experience. Here's a list of things I have learned in the process: importance of narrative structure and character development; website development, design and uploading; code encryption and challenge design; audio recording and cross-media integration; the value of subject-related forums (affinity groups); features of a good/bad ARG (I hope); and effective and not-so-effective ways to produce work and communicate with a co-worker online. Such an outcome of having a game designed and produced by the end of the course (almost), was not something I had originally expected.
In terms of future directions, I am now hugely inspired to further my research and application of GBL and, as I mentioned above, I'm particularly drawn to the potential of ARGs and Cross-Media initiatives for learning and teaching (Project NML for example, includes some innovative projects). I get the impression (though this is likely to be biased of course) that the field of GBL is likely to grow over the next few years, and for me this is one of the more exciting and potentially important directions that the wider field of e-learning is heading.
Showing posts with label Squire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Squire. Show all posts
Monday, 9 April 2007
Monday, 12 March 2007
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]
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]
Tuesday, 20 February 2007
LEVEL 6 - Towards meaningful play and gaming
If gaming is to be accepted and encouraged in mainstream education as a valid and effective teaching practice then it must overcome one of its biggest hurdles: the notion that playing games is meaningless distraction and of no real value. As I mentioned in my previous entry, modern culture's general image of play tends to disregard the more 'mature' benefits of rule-informed playing, such as the mental and verbal contests that Huizinga recognises in sophisticated disciplines such as politics, philosophy and law. The potential value of play for adults tends to be subsumed by the perception of play as something that's infantile and foolish, and for children only. The 'work ethic' mentality, that has arisen since the industrial revolution, compelling the workforce to toil relentlessly and efficiently, has contributed to the opinion that play and games have no place in an adult (or even young adult) work or learning environment - work is qualitatively distinct from play. In spite of play now being generally acknowledged as a necessary feature of our free time, the general view is that *work and play are irreconcilable* - at least in any self-respecting organisation. However, it is clear from research and anecdotal evidence that work and play *are* compatible. And that when play and games are embraced thoughtfully in a work and/or learning environment, the results can be *better* than they would be without their influence. Games and play are not just mindless distractions, but can in fact facilitate meaningful developments psychologically, socially and functionally.
Kane's chapter 2 of 'The Play Ethic: A manifesto for a different way of living' is a compelling call-to-arms for play and gaming enthusiasts. (In spite anything with *manifesto* in the title tending to be somewhat one-sided!). Drawing on rich sources from literature, culture, history and science, he presents a persuasive case for the importance of play in personal and social development, and in scientific endeavour. He goes as far as to present the case for a *play ethic*, a way of living and working that it is in his view more personally fulfilling and better suited to present day life than a 'work ethic'. In his words, the 'play ethic is about counterposing a purely neo-liberal, capitalist network with a whole thicket of other networks - emotional and sexual, geographical and traditional, artistic and civic... [It's] a 21st century identity'. In spite of being perhaps a little overdone, he presents some convincing arguments and evidence for the benefits of play.
One of his propositions is that play contributes significantly to human progress and development. I have touched on this issue of play in development in previous postings, highlighting how play is a form of experimentation for infants. Kane echoes this point, writing that 'the consensus from biologists and psychologists, derived from over a century of observing animal and human play, is that play is a necessity, not a luxury, for advanced mammals.' In terms of education, there are a number of progressive educationalists who have recognised play's potential for inspiring children, most notably Froebel, who conceived of the now well-established Kindergarten - 'where children could blossom like flowers'. Froebel gave children 'play gifts', such as play-dough and crayons, etc. , so they could 'externalise consepts in their minds, rather than have 'the facts' imprinted on their brains. There are also a number of other unorthodox teaching methods championed by Maria Montessori, Rudolf Steiner, and Kurt Hahn among others, involving creative and undogmatic principles, which are only now beginning to creep in to mainstream thinking, though mainly at a primary level. The ultimate aim of these methods is not for the children to enjoy themselves, though this is often a welcome advantage, but to *facilitate effective learning*. What makes using play more effective? The answer lies in the brain. Kane references a New Scientist article which states that, 'early play in childhood is less about practising to fight and mate..., and much more about improving brain power at a crucially formative moment... The very act of playing seems to strengthen and extend the number of neural connections in the brain... Neuropsychologist Stephen Siviy, when observing brain chemistry under experimental conditions [says], 'play just lights everything up'.'
Another of Kane's more striking propositions is that much of modern scientific thinking and language is inspired by playfulness, which he proposes is a fitting attitude for the complexities of the present day. He uses examples of Schrodinger's half-serious thought experiment involving a cat at the mercy of the unpredictability of quantum theory, and Einstein's famous (misquoted) aphorism, 'God doesn't play dice with the universe'. References to play and gaming can be found throughout scientific research, and that some of the more recent sciences especially, such as chaos, complexity, systems and networks theory, actually require a playful vision to appreciate. Kane quotes Manfred Eigen and Ruthild Winkler as saying: 'Everything that happens in our world resembles a vast game in which nothing is determined but the rules, and only the rules are open to objective understanding'. Kane suggests that modern visions of the world require us to accept some of the apparently random and arbitrary nature of the universe, understanding the world better by 'entering into its games, by respecting its creativity, by joining in the play of living forms'. As biologist Brian Goodwin says, 'this realization that the ovarall behaviour of complex systems (like the weather, or the brain, or human society) cannot ultimately be predicted has 'enormous consequences'. "Real systems, and particularly living ones such as organisms, ecological systems and societies, are radically unpredictable in their behaviour"'. To progress in these uncertain fields, scientists must accept 'just how unpredicatbly creative the evolutionary process is', adopting a 'playful' attitude of both controlling/understanding and being controlled/challenged by our environment. Kane also cites Geoffrey Miller, whose book The Mating Mind, suggests that from an evolutionary perspective, 'nature commands that humans should play in order to survive and thrive.' With respect to Maslow's pyramid of needs, there is no priority in life that has greater *meaning* to humans than survival itself.
Accepting play as meaningful action can also mean acknowledging play's significant contribution to facilitating our development as people - by recognising play's contribution to selfhood, imagination and identity. Play enables us to fashion not only our early selves, but also throughout our adult development. As Kane writes, 'play is the primal force which built our early selves, and can revivify and infuse our adult selves with a craving for action and innovation.' As neuroscientific studies have shown, our brains 'light up' during play, even through adulthood. As Howard Gardner, the Harvard Educationalist and psychologist says: 'We play to master our self, our anxiety and the world.' So play helps us to develop as people, but also as groups. Playful group rituals such as festivals and parties helps us to bond as communities. On this subject Kane quotes Alessandro Falassi, whose book, Time out of Time, describes collective play as being a 'periodic renewal of the stream of the community by creating new energy ... which gives sanction to its institutions'. Thus collective play is a *meaningful* act of collaboration, encouraging reciprocal altruism, and enhanced civility (though not *always* of course).
So all in all, playful activities (including games) are valuable and meaningful activities, not just during leisure time, but also potentially during working hours and learning environments. Not only can playful activities lighten serious and monotonous work, they can also make it more efficient. And I agree with Kane's manifesto proposition, that play and games are especially necessary in our changing working and learning environments. Raigeleuth's and other's recognition that we have entered an *information age* [see appendix below] requires that we change our attitudes. As Kurt Squire writes, there is a growing recognition that traditional models of instruction, organized by modernist, scientific, rationalist social theory and assembly line metaphors for social organization are failing to work for us in the new economy. Like Reigeluth, Gee, and others, I argue that new organizing metaphors for learning and new models of learning environments are needed to respond to the social and economic realities of the 21st century'. Hence play and games offer one possible way of engaging young 'digital native' learners and the subsequent workers that grow up in the digital age.
Accepting the meaningfulness of play and games in education however, is likely to require some institutional reform, particularly in evaluation methodology. Play will often involve using imaginative and creative processes, but as Kane writes, 'how much 'imagination' can educators allow into the teaching process - when the currriculum is geared towards a competitive jobs market and is based on test reults rather than an open-ended journey towards understanding?'. This concern is likely to polarise educators, until at some point, the digital natives at home in the information age and the 'experience economy' will have their way. Finally, as Kane suggests, 'by recognising our essential ludicism, by dignifying our play with an ethical force, we can begin to create and act, rather than simply consume and spectate.' Let's hope this recognition comes sooner rather than later.
Appendix - Table 1: Changes in Global Economies (Reigeluth, 1999).
INDUSTRIAL AGE INFORMATION AGE
Standardization .......... Customization
Centralized control .......... Autonomy with accountability
Adversarial relationships .......... Cooperative relationships
Autocratic decision making.......... Shared decision making
Compliance .......... Initiative
Conformity .......... Diversity
One-way communications .......... Networking
Compartmentalization .......... Holism
Parts-oriented .......... Process-oriented
Teacher as "King" .......... Learner (customer) as "King"
Kane's chapter 2 of 'The Play Ethic: A manifesto for a different way of living' is a compelling call-to-arms for play and gaming enthusiasts. (In spite anything with *manifesto* in the title tending to be somewhat one-sided!). Drawing on rich sources from literature, culture, history and science, he presents a persuasive case for the importance of play in personal and social development, and in scientific endeavour. He goes as far as to present the case for a *play ethic*, a way of living and working that it is in his view more personally fulfilling and better suited to present day life than a 'work ethic'. In his words, the 'play ethic is about counterposing a purely neo-liberal, capitalist network with a whole thicket of other networks - emotional and sexual, geographical and traditional, artistic and civic... [It's] a 21st century identity'. In spite of being perhaps a little overdone, he presents some convincing arguments and evidence for the benefits of play.
One of his propositions is that play contributes significantly to human progress and development. I have touched on this issue of play in development in previous postings, highlighting how play is a form of experimentation for infants. Kane echoes this point, writing that 'the consensus from biologists and psychologists, derived from over a century of observing animal and human play, is that play is a necessity, not a luxury, for advanced mammals.' In terms of education, there are a number of progressive educationalists who have recognised play's potential for inspiring children, most notably Froebel, who conceived of the now well-established Kindergarten - 'where children could blossom like flowers'. Froebel gave children 'play gifts', such as play-dough and crayons, etc. , so they could 'externalise consepts in their minds, rather than have 'the facts' imprinted on their brains. There are also a number of other unorthodox teaching methods championed by Maria Montessori, Rudolf Steiner, and Kurt Hahn among others, involving creative and undogmatic principles, which are only now beginning to creep in to mainstream thinking, though mainly at a primary level. The ultimate aim of these methods is not for the children to enjoy themselves, though this is often a welcome advantage, but to *facilitate effective learning*. What makes using play more effective? The answer lies in the brain. Kane references a New Scientist article which states that, 'early play in childhood is less about practising to fight and mate..., and much more about improving brain power at a crucially formative moment... The very act of playing seems to strengthen and extend the number of neural connections in the brain... Neuropsychologist Stephen Siviy, when observing brain chemistry under experimental conditions [says], 'play just lights everything up'.'
Another of Kane's more striking propositions is that much of modern scientific thinking and language is inspired by playfulness, which he proposes is a fitting attitude for the complexities of the present day. He uses examples of Schrodinger's half-serious thought experiment involving a cat at the mercy of the unpredictability of quantum theory, and Einstein's famous (misquoted) aphorism, 'God doesn't play dice with the universe'. References to play and gaming can be found throughout scientific research, and that some of the more recent sciences especially, such as chaos, complexity, systems and networks theory, actually require a playful vision to appreciate. Kane quotes Manfred Eigen and Ruthild Winkler as saying: 'Everything that happens in our world resembles a vast game in which nothing is determined but the rules, and only the rules are open to objective understanding'. Kane suggests that modern visions of the world require us to accept some of the apparently random and arbitrary nature of the universe, understanding the world better by 'entering into its games, by respecting its creativity, by joining in the play of living forms'. As biologist Brian Goodwin says, 'this realization that the ovarall behaviour of complex systems (like the weather, or the brain, or human society) cannot ultimately be predicted has 'enormous consequences'. "Real systems, and particularly living ones such as organisms, ecological systems and societies, are radically unpredictable in their behaviour"'. To progress in these uncertain fields, scientists must accept 'just how unpredicatbly creative the evolutionary process is', adopting a 'playful' attitude of both controlling/understanding and being controlled/challenged by our environment. Kane also cites Geoffrey Miller, whose book The Mating Mind, suggests that from an evolutionary perspective, 'nature commands that humans should play in order to survive and thrive.' With respect to Maslow's pyramid of needs, there is no priority in life that has greater *meaning* to humans than survival itself.
Accepting play as meaningful action can also mean acknowledging play's significant contribution to facilitating our development as people - by recognising play's contribution to selfhood, imagination and identity. Play enables us to fashion not only our early selves, but also throughout our adult development. As Kane writes, 'play is the primal force which built our early selves, and can revivify and infuse our adult selves with a craving for action and innovation.' As neuroscientific studies have shown, our brains 'light up' during play, even through adulthood. As Howard Gardner, the Harvard Educationalist and psychologist says: 'We play to master our self, our anxiety and the world.' So play helps us to develop as people, but also as groups. Playful group rituals such as festivals and parties helps us to bond as communities. On this subject Kane quotes Alessandro Falassi, whose book, Time out of Time, describes collective play as being a 'periodic renewal of the stream of the community by creating new energy ... which gives sanction to its institutions'. Thus collective play is a *meaningful* act of collaboration, encouraging reciprocal altruism, and enhanced civility (though not *always* of course).
So all in all, playful activities (including games) are valuable and meaningful activities, not just during leisure time, but also potentially during working hours and learning environments. Not only can playful activities lighten serious and monotonous work, they can also make it more efficient. And I agree with Kane's manifesto proposition, that play and games are especially necessary in our changing working and learning environments. Raigeleuth's and other's recognition that we have entered an *information age* [see appendix below] requires that we change our attitudes. As Kurt Squire writes, there is a growing recognition that traditional models of instruction, organized by modernist, scientific, rationalist social theory and assembly line metaphors for social organization are failing to work for us in the new economy. Like Reigeluth, Gee, and others, I argue that new organizing metaphors for learning and new models of learning environments are needed to respond to the social and economic realities of the 21st century'. Hence play and games offer one possible way of engaging young 'digital native' learners and the subsequent workers that grow up in the digital age.
Accepting the meaningfulness of play and games in education however, is likely to require some institutional reform, particularly in evaluation methodology. Play will often involve using imaginative and creative processes, but as Kane writes, 'how much 'imagination' can educators allow into the teaching process - when the currriculum is geared towards a competitive jobs market and is based on test reults rather than an open-ended journey towards understanding?'. This concern is likely to polarise educators, until at some point, the digital natives at home in the information age and the 'experience economy' will have their way. Finally, as Kane suggests, 'by recognising our essential ludicism, by dignifying our play with an ethical force, we can begin to create and act, rather than simply consume and spectate.' Let's hope this recognition comes sooner rather than later.
Appendix - Table 1: Changes in Global Economies (Reigeluth, 1999).
INDUSTRIAL AGE INFORMATION AGE
Standardization .......... Customization
Centralized control .......... Autonomy with accountability
Adversarial relationships .......... Cooperative relationships
Autocratic decision making.......... Shared decision making
Compliance .......... Initiative
Conformity .......... Diversity
One-way communications .......... Networking
Compartmentalization .......... Holism
Parts-oriented .......... Process-oriented
Teacher as "King" .......... Learner (customer) as "King"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
