Are We Having Fun Yet?

Most of these learning principles seem to apply to learning of all sorts, not just learning related to gaming. And that seems to be the point that Gee is trying to convey: that gaming is learning. It seems like his goal, then, is to understand how people learn from games, and to try to incorporate that somehow into teaching. I’m not sure that bringing games into the classroom really accomplishes this (or that Gee would want it to), since I think an important part of the learning that happens in gaming is that it is voluntary, and turning a game into school, no matter how fun the game, removes that voluntary quality.

Or maybe it would work, I don’t know.

Gee’s principles themselves, though, seem numerous enough to cover pretty much anything and to provide opportunities for incorporation into non-gaming classrooms. “1: Active, Critical Learning” certainly takes place in all English classes, and students learn to “2: Design” academic writing, as well as to understand “3: Semiotics” and “4: Semiotic Domains.” And so on.

Not really sure what I’m trying to say here. Perhaps discussion will be more illuminating.

Utopia Not Achieved

Despite ANGEL’s best efforts, I did actually manage to contribute somewhat to the class’s online chat, and I would hardly term what I participated in as anything even remotely approaching “utopia.”

The main problems were lag and lack of visual cues for conversation. Lag could be fixed by using a system that actually works, instead of ANGEL, but visual cues are a little more complicated. Most instant messaging programs have a little icon that appears when the other person is typing, so you can wait for them to finish if you want. But with so many people I’m not sure if this would work. Google Wave also shows people’s messages as they type them, so you could interrupt someone more like a regular conversation, but then it’s harder to tell when they’re finished.

I don’t think I would use this sort of thing in a classroom unless those issues were resolved. And even then, I think I prefer non-face-to-face communication to be a little more “composed,” like blog posts or other responses. I prefer my synchronous conversations to be in person, not over a computer.

Blackboard

I have not had much personal experience with distance learning. My only experience has been with course management systems (first Blackboard and now ANGEL), which I suppose is how distance learning works, except all the time (but maybe not?). I am not particularly fond of course management systems. My main gripe is that they always seem outdated, and the rest of the problems stem from there.

If the functionality of a course management system can be better achieved with something like a Google group, then I have a hard time seeing the point of using a proprietary system. Most of my interactions with course management systems have been overly convoluted, requiring unintuitive navigation through an inane labyrinth of sections designed by someone who seems to have never used the Internet, let alone taught a college class with it.

Once I got out of entry level classes, most of my undergraduate professors used their own websites instead of Blackboard, if they used the Internet at all for their class. And those that did use Blackboard only used it as a repository of course documents, not for its more marketable features, like discussion boards or other student interactions.

I think the main reason for this was how hard it is to get a pre-made system to do what you want it to do. And Blackboard (which now owns ANGEL) more or less has the market covered, requiring little innovation on their part. The system is simply not flexible.

All of my experiences with instructor-made websites have been significantly better than with a course management system. I think if an entire course were to be taught online, it would require a more flexible and complex system than Blackboard or ANGEL. Students would need to be able to interact with the instructor and with each other more than simply through written text.