Interactive Video Games

Today’s learners know something about a subject before they ever walk into a classroom, very rarely does a learner show up as an empty vessel. According to Prensky (2001, p. 75), it is very difficult to teach these students because you will be boring someone. He explains that the traditional form of teaching, which consists of the “literacy-oriented, industrially standardized tell-test system”, whereby you have an instructor, trainer or teacher who tells the information to their students and then they test their students, is over. He says that the biggest reason that the tell-test method is failing is that the world of the learner has changed so dramatically. Prensky (2001, p.76) explains this is because learners no longer see themselves “as receptacles to be filled with content; instead they see themselves as creators and doers.” Many educators have observed this same evolution in the primary classroom (Gee, 2003: Prenksy, 2001 & Simpson, 2005). In particular, Simpson (2005, p. 17) says the primary vehicle for this change is because “Kids today spend more time outside the classroom – exploring, questioning and problem solving – than they do ‘learning’ in school.” This vehicle according to a growing number of educators is the world of interactive video games. Many educators believe that these games teach concepts by totally engaging players in experiences. Because these changes have happened so rapidly, “the kids have totally outpaced their parents and elders in the new ways of the world.” (Prensky 2001, p. 39) Some cognitive psychologists have suggested that because video games are so explicit, lifelike and concentrated they have altered the way children prefer to learn and have created a completely new literacy among the young. (Gee, 2003: Prensky, 2001: Simpson, 2005) Since this development is so new, substantial study has yet to be done. Recent literature, (Squire, Giovanetto, Devane & Durga 2005 p. 35) acknowledges this fact, “To date, we actually know relatively little about the consequences of game play on the cognition of those who play them.” The purpose of this literature review is to examine what is known about how children learn through interactive video games and what is not yet known. In addition, a discussion about the probable areas of research will be defined.
Recent research (Simpson 2005, p. 17) indicates that over the past 10 years there has been a 300% increase in students being labeled with learning disabilities. Simpson suggests one possible reason for this increase is that our teachers are not capable of meeting the needs of a new generation of learners. The learners she is referring to are students who have daily access to interactive 3D environments. These children spend a significant amount of time exploring that environment and have skills and problem solving abilities to maneuver within it. She also cites that there is evidence indicating that the same students who are at a higher risk for failure in the traditional classroom setting spend 27 minutes per day more than their counterparts playing video games (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2002: Woodward, 2002). She suggests that the way our schools are currently set up, is disabling some students who given a different learning environment, might otherwise thrive. Simpson (2005, p. 17) points out that although research on the subject is still in its formative years, there is strong evidence to support this case. Most of these students are classified as bright and inquisitive and can do things with a computer that the average teacher does not know how to do. However, these are the very same children that are at risk for failure and are being labeled “lazy, apathetic, behavior problems, truant, disengaged, or suffering from a bad attitude. Simply put, they are not happy in school. They are bored. They aren’t challenged. They see no relevance in the subject matter. Some are dropping out and many are just waiting it out, apathetic and unengaged. I believe it is because of the video game.” Simpson (2005, p. 17)
According to Prensky (2001, p. 17), the immense changes in technology over the past 30 years, especially video games, have changed dramatically the way people think, learn and process information. The change has been so enormous that today’s youth have a different intellectual style and different minds from all preceding generations, so much so that most of the theories we have formulated about how people learn and think may no longer apply to how this generation thinks and learns. He points out that our whole learning system is breaking down because we are working hard to educate a new generation using tools that have ceased to be effective. The new generation of learners cannot just be told, they must learn by discovery, constructivism, interaction, and by having fun. He also points out that “Anyone born in the United States after 1961 almost certainly grew up with digital games in their life…and these experiences have produced major, although largely undocumented and understudied, effects on these people. As a result of growing up surrounded by this incredible array of new technologies, the under 40 generation’s minds have literally been altered. ‘Rewired’ is the popular term…” (Prensky, 2001 p. 39).
Gee (2003, p. 7) points out that because of interactive video games “good students and bad ones, rich ones and poor ones, don’t much like school.” The facts are that 92% of children ages 2 to 17 play video and computer games (Simpson, p. 18). She notes that “video games cross all cultural and ethnic boundaries. Not recognizing that these shared experiences exist, public education has failed to provide for the impact of that experience on student’s learning.” (Simpson, p. 18). As a result she notes this is creating a dichotomy whereby the world of teachers is coming in conflict with the world of students. Simpson (2005, p.18) explains that “The teachers are working within an environment where change tends to be slow, money scarce and bureaucracy plentiful…students are living in an environment where change is rapid, constant and anticipated. This generation of learner wants to be challenged. They want to have some control over the choices they make and the direction they take. The student’s are ready to be in the driver’s seat and in the fast lane.” Teachers on the other hand, do not want to give up the driver’s seat. According to Simpson (2005, p. 18) the number one request by teachers for professional development revolves around behavior management/control issues. Teachers are persuaded to use differentiated instruction, and many teachers are unsure how to meet the individual needs of so many students while still maintaining control. Conversely, Simpson points out that differentiation is an every day part of the video gamers life, every aspect of their life is individualized for them. She cites choices inherent in the play of video games, information gathered on the Internet and the ability to Google, and choices of music, just to name a few. The list is endless. So the kids don’t like school because the “have it your way generation” does not care for the “do it my way” philosophy of the traditional old school generation. It is interesting to annotate at this point that despite the fact that 53 million U.S. children in grades K-12 play interactive video games more hours than any other group in the world, interactive video play is 95 to 5 times more likely to occur in their homes (Prensky, 2002 p. 187). For those who argue that this is how it should be, a growing number of educators are arguing that the “computer games are such a powerful motivator for kids that we are crazy not to be using them in schools.” (Prensky, 2001).
The benefits of interactive video game play are impressive. Simpson (2005, p. 19) observes that interactive video games are always basically fair. In an interactive video game there is a problem that has a solution which directs the player to an end result. There can be many solutions to one problem. En route to the goal, all solutions count equally. Even though the solutions are rarely obvious, a correct answer will be useful in reaching the goal. Perseverance pays off and the answer is always relevant to the goal. Although you may be frustrated while attempting to find a solution, and you may need help in finding it, the solution is always there. Hints also known as cheats are built into the program to help you find your way. It is interesting to note that cheats are alright, because you are moving forward and gaining the knowledge to accomplish your goal. She contrasts this information with the fact that in schools the answer is given to you, it is not always relevant, and the goal is not always clear. She notes that in schools the message is “There is only one right answer and one right way to get there and cheats are not to be tolerated! Students rarely, if ever, associate fairness with schools.” (Simpson, 2005 p. 19) In interactive video games the player has the tools and the talent to be successful. Players can connect with someone who has the information that they need in order to move forward. Collaboration does not merit punishment and is completely acceptable. Children see themselves and their friends do amazing things such as save the world from terrorists, or beat alien invasions, create thriving civilizations and manage successful businesses. The list is endless. Children are given power and control over their destiny. She concludes that children learn by trial and error, and if this does not work, children know where to find the necessary answers and can access them at will. Games allow children who do not win to restart and to try again. The players all know that they will not make the same mistakes twice. In interactive video games failure is a learning experience, not the end result that it is in schools.
For those who would argue that these are only silly games and lack content, Gee (2003, p. 43) argues that video games are not a waste of time because players are actively and critically learning a new semiotic domain. He defines semiotic domain as a design space that recreates systems that are human cultural and historical creations. They are designed to engage and manipulate the player so that the player learns how to think about, and act on these sorts of identities in certain ways. These semiotic domains attempt to engage the player to think, act, interact, value and feel in certain and very specific ways. These learning strategies stress active and critical learning within the semiotic domain. While playing they are learning to experience these worlds in a new way. By doing this, they are gaining the potential to join and collaborate with a new affinity group. By accomplishing these tasks they are developing resources for future learning and problem solving in the semiotic domains to which the game is related. When a game is successful (e.g. popular and sells), he maintains that these games are crafted in ways that encourage and facilitate active and critical learning and thinking. He states “I am convinced that playing video games is not a waste of time.” (Gee, 2003 p. 48). Gee (2003) found that interactive video games to have the following learning principals:
Active, Critical Learning Principal- All aspects of the learning environment (including the ways in which the semiotic domain is designed and presented) are set up to encourage active and critical, not passive, learning.
Design Principle- Learning about and coming to appreciate design and design principle is core to the learning experience.
Semiotic Principle- Learning about and coming to appreciate interrelations within and across multiple sign systems (images, words, actions, symbols, artifacts, etc.) as a complex system is core to the learning experience.
Semiotic Domains Principle- Learning involves mastering, at some level, semiotic domains, and being able to participate, at some level, in the affinity group or groups connected to them.
Metalevel Thinking about Semiotic Domains Principle- Learning involves active and critical thinking about the relationships of the semiotic domain being learned.
One of the first people to observe and study this phenomenon is a professor of psychology of at the University of California in Los Angeles. Her studies may become the milestones in this area as Prensky (2001, p. 44) notes that her original ideas in her first book on this subject, Mind and Media published in 1984, is just now finding wider acceptance among the academic community. In her book she notes that video skills go far beyond the eye hand coordination skills commonly cited. She states that “Video games are the first example of a computer technology that is having a socializing effect on the next generation on a mass scale…(they) may have developed skills in iconic representation than the person entirely socialized by the older media of print and radio. The videogame and computer, in adding an interactive dimension to television, may also be creating people with special skills in discovering rules and patterns by and active and interactive process of trial and error.” Some of the ways she sees players demonstrating these skills is in the development of reading visual images as representations of three-dimensional space. She found that this is a combination of several competencies, including working in real time, collaborating with the computer by the use of a joy stick or other controller, developing multidimensional visual-spatial skills, and mental maps. Computer game skills also enhance thinking skills such as is found in the skill of mental paper folding (i.e. picturing the results of various origami-like folds in your mind without actually doing them. It is important to note that it is a cumulative skill; there is no effect from playing the game for only a few hours. According to Prensky, (2001, p.44) these types of thinking skills were found in other studies as well. Greenfield discovered because you play and learn the rules of the game as you go, video games develop the skills of discovery through observation, trial and error and hypothesis testing. Computer games require the process of inductive discovery that is the same basic cognitive process found in scientific thinking. You must be able to make observations, formulate hypotheses and figure out the rules of the governing behavior in a dynamic representation in order to think your way through the process. As a result video games skills transfer to and lead to a greater comprehension of scientific simulations, because players have an increased ability to decode the iconic representation of computer graphics. Finally, she found video game players are faster at responding to both expected and unexpected stimuli because they have developed strategies of attentional deployment. This is useful for the divided attention tasks, such as monitoring multiple locations simultaneously.
Historically, teachers have demonstrated that they have not been savvy in the use of new technologies. One of the pedagogy issues that was hotly debated during the 1936 Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) convention was whether to buy and use the new sound recording technology in movie making for educational films. During the silent movies, teachers used their voice to illustrate, define and teach. As you can well imagine, they did not give this up easily. Silent film supporters pointed out the value of this technique; personalizing the film and tailoring it to a specific audience, incorporating the teacher into the presentation, and the pedagogical theory of this era supported the teacher-narrated film. The educators were overcome by events, as the movie industry only made films with sound after a certain point. They had missed the boat and the choice was not theirs to make because no one was making silent films any longer (AECT, 2005). For educators, there are other compelling reasons why video gaming is of importance because “Video gaming is now often children’s first and most compelling introduction to digital technologies, and is presumed to be a door to a broader range of digital applications.” (Hayes, 2005, p.23) As every day passes, technology is more and more important in our world. Questions about how games operate are important for the design of future interactive learning systems. As educators we need to understand the theoretical underpinnings of how games function to produce learning so that we may fully utilize this powerful tool. It is not a question of whether or not video games will replace the traditional methods of teaching, traditional methods will always have a significant place in classroom. As a major teaching tool, interactive video games deserve the attention of serious research and study because it is an extremely effective and powerful tool for learning. Many games embody powerful learning principles, which teachers might want to follow. Interactive video games teach by engrossing students in experiences and by designing spaces that are conducive to learning. They are models of expert problem solving ventures, where children can find useful knowledge. It has become one of our most useful learning environments, and unfortunately it is not located in most schools. Contrary to common belief, games do not let players do whatever they want, but they solicit a particular way of thinking through the careful construction of rules, scenarios, and design elements. After numerous hours of play there is evidence that these games also alter the way our children see the world. Very few of these applications are being presently used for academic domains.

Written by Brenda Hutchinson 2006

Bibliography
Association for Educational Communications & Technology History Page. (n.d.) Consolidation Period (1932-1945) Retrieved September 5, 2005, from (http://www.aect.org/About/History/consolidation.htm)
Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hayes, E. (2005). Women, video gaming and learning: Beyond Stereotypes. Tech Trends 49. 23-28.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P. et al. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Computers and Education, 40, 71-94.
Simpson, E. (2005). Evolution in the classroom: What teachers need to know about the video game generation. Tech Trends. 49, 17-22.