The experience of an online game as a college course has both positive and negative implications. Positively, it might encourage more active participation from a plugged-in group of college students. It is creative, fun, and could make the "work" of learning more pleasurable. Negatively, it might discourage the role of the professor as authority, it might limit the content covered, and it might alienate (no pun intended!) those students who are less comfortable in such an immersive digital environment. In either case, it couples learning about economics with an entirely different kind of learning (technical literacy) and thus defines itself as interdisciplinary by design.
Using a video game to teach the prinicple of microeconomics is a good idea because it offers students an opportunity to learn in a way that is familiar and engaging to them.
I'm not sure. While I think using gaming in this way can be useful, it feels wrong - too insular. And yet I can see the benefits of analyzing all kinds of issues in this way. Probably my resistance is generational.
This course sounds like a lot of fun. I wish alternative courses would have been available when I was getting my undergraduate degree.
I'm curious to know how the grading would be administered. Is it based on the player's ability to succeed at specific tasks, to apply economic tasks learned by playing the game or from some other source, or by simply participating?
This course sounds like a lot of fun. I wish alternative courses would have been available when I was getting my undergraduate degree.
I'm curious to know how the grading would be administered. Is it based on the player's ability to succeed at specific tasks, to apply economic tasks learned by playing the game or from some other source, or by simply participating?
boring, uninspiring, bias, unreal context, neat way to present information, I need to see more and use it, it would hook students into learning but after awhile would leave them wondering, "Ahhhh, ok but how do I work with real people in real life"
The following are positive attributes to an on-line gaming course:
* students will most likely stay engaged * students will find it interesting to be playing a game-Americans are competitive by nature and are taught to win * students will think its "cooler" than writing a paper * students will be able to learn about economy through virtual reality
The following are negative attributes to an on-line gaming course:
* students may not like science fiction and find aliens boring and uninteresting * students may feel offended by alien life due to religious or personal beliefs * students may become "addicted" and ignore other responsibilites * students may not be able to apply alien economy to American economy-some people can not separate the two
I worry about the content of the course and suspect that it glorifies neoclassical economics as "economics". This parallels my fear about the whole media literacy movement, in that we are asked about our feelings re: the modality of the course, "gaming" but not about the reality that in the tiny clip we already saw we heard an only conventional assessment of the "need to accumulate capital" as the point of "economics". I worry that the quest for greater social justice gets marginalized. I associate "gaming" with this world that conflates method and "grand rationale for being and doing".
it reminds me of lemonade stand from elementary school. In this case, I'd lik to know more about the game and how it functions. For instance, does the game have the ability to take a more advanced learner deeper into subject matter, or is the class over as soon as you reach some prescribed endpoint? Using computeres to allow for individualized pacing makes sense to me, but having computers and games replace other forms of instruction altogether is less desirable.
Simulation has been an educational tool in various forms for a long time. This video game course seems to be the next generation of this educational technique and therefore could be a useful way to convey information and create opportunities for constructing new knowledge. The online model means there are opportunities for interaction. Although this is a fantasy world of the video game, in some ways it is a great opportunity to apply economic concepts to a "real life" situation without gettng bogged down in the complexities of our everyday lives. I do have some reservations about online classes in general and what it really takes to make them effective learning environments. And, I wonder in this class where the simulation ends and the analysis comes in. I am very curious about this distance learning format and would like to learn more. My initial reactions were not positive as a reaction to something foreign, but as I think about it, I really have more questions and ideas about how it could be a rich and useful learning context and format.
Interesting, Anonymous... I know a few folks who work from home and interact with co-workers almost entirely via the Internet. People could use more help learning to be good communicators in the digital age. Maybe that could be part of the video game course somehow.
This is a great option for students who have gaming skills. As long as this course is offered in another format, I embrace this concept. Clearly this game focuses on exercising the students' critical thinking skills as they try to problem solve. Actually for many students, this would be a very exciting learning experience. A curiosity that I have is whether or not this class would be mostly males. My experience influences this concern because it seems to me that the boys in my class spend much more time playing video games than the girls. This could be a "set-back" for women since it is already proven that females feel less confident in the math science areas of study. I would be interested in how this type of course plays out?????
As an elementary school teacher I used simulation games to teach about economics. The kids enjoyed the experience which was interactive and engaging. The games required working together and so challenged students to cooperate, negotiate, compromise and set boundaries. Thje games were always followed with analysis about both content - what did you learn about economics - and process - what were the challenges of working together to accomplish your goal.
My question about the university class is whether it is an indivdual or group activity and what kind of reflection would accompany the experience. Such a class could become a media literacy teaching if the reflection on the experience included the key questions we're asking - about purpose, impact, response in paricular. If it's just a game for entertainment sake then it becomes similar to showing a video in class to pass time or pacify students and as a result has little merit as a media literacy tool.
online gaming for the college course is not sound for me. What they play game outside classroom is enough, I don't like they regard classroom learning as another kind of gaming.
On the one hand, play is central to how we learn, so I like that aspect of this idea. There is nothing better than a good game.
On the other hand, I am extremely skeptical that this is in fact a good game. It looks to me like a college leaping onto the technology band wagon without giving much thought to what purpose is being served or what is potentially lost. There is a cultishness here that I resist--the idea that technology is progress, that it is good, and therefore that more is better.
It's wierd--I think I detect a kind of resistance to analysis built into the set of assumptions which drive technology. Somehow analysis and making logical sense are can be made to seem passe and dated.
The solution to the problem of technology is more technology. It's a positive feedback loop.
I can see that many of you are a little uncomfortable with the notion of "playing a game" or not getting necessary information out of an econ class. I've made a couple of assumptions about this game which may be valid - or seriously flawed. One is that the professor has put a lot of thought into the value of this game and thinks that the outcomes are worthy of valuable class time. The second is that the planning, design and construction has education and econ goals in mind. Ted's remark about the game "Lemonade Stand" being similar to what this game appers to be is true, and if you've played "Lemonade", you'd find that although it's disguised as play, the game itself teaches valuable lessons about economics.
In response to Rachel's comment, I am not so worried about the couse instructor losing "authority" as the instructor has set up the instructional context. He/She has the opportunity to be the coach and facilitator, creating opportunities for learners to construct new knowledge. I would guess that the instructor of the course has opportunities to shape and redirect as the game moves forward, posing new questions, possibilities, and challenges. In this model, knowledge does not come from the authority pouring information ionto the minds of the students and that is a great thing. By designing the "world," the instructor becomes an active architect of the course, which is quite exciting to me.
27 comments:
talk about grading on a curve. You figure you are graded based on your score or if you win?
Sign me up! I'd love to be able to play a game while taking a class for college credit.
The experience of an online game as a college course has both positive and negative implications. Positively, it might encourage more active participation from a plugged-in group of college students. It is creative, fun, and could make the "work" of learning more pleasurable. Negatively, it might discourage the role of the professor as authority, it might limit the content covered, and it might alienate (no pun intended!) those students who are less comfortable in such an immersive digital environment. In either case, it couples learning about economics with an entirely different kind of learning (technical literacy) and thus defines itself as interdisciplinary by design.
Using a video game to teach the prinicple of microeconomics is a good idea because it offers students an opportunity to learn in a way that is familiar and engaging to them.
I wonder if there's any instruction in between the action. Sounds like fun, though.
I'm not sure. While I think using gaming in this way can be useful, it feels wrong - too insular. And yet I can see the benefits of analyzing all kinds of issues in this way. Probably my resistance is generational.
This course sounds like a lot of fun. I wish alternative courses would have been available when I was getting my undergraduate degree.
I'm curious to know how the grading would be administered. Is it based on the player's ability to succeed at specific tasks, to apply economic tasks learned by playing the game or from some other source, or by simply participating?
This course sounds like a lot of fun. I wish alternative courses would have been available when I was getting my undergraduate degree.
I'm curious to know how the grading would be administered. Is it based on the player's ability to succeed at specific tasks, to apply economic tasks learned by playing the game or from some other source, or by simply participating?
boring, uninspiring, bias, unreal context, neat way to present information, I need to see more and use it, it would hook students into learning but after awhile would leave them wondering, "Ahhhh, ok but how do I work with real people in real life"
It is a really different world for me, I am not sure if my brain could ever be trained to work in this way!
ECON IN THE FORM OF GAMING
The following are positive attributes to an on-line gaming course:
* students will most likely stay engaged
* students will find it interesting to be playing a
game-Americans are competitive by nature and
are taught to win
* students will think its "cooler" than writing a paper
* students will be able to learn about economy
through virtual reality
The following are negative attributes to an on-line gaming course:
* students may not like science fiction and find
aliens boring and uninteresting
* students may feel offended by alien life due to
religious or personal beliefs
* students may become "addicted" and ignore
other responsibilites
* students may not be able to apply alien economy
to American economy-some people can not
separate the two
I worry about the content of the course and suspect that it glorifies neoclassical economics as "economics". This parallels my fear about the whole media literacy movement, in that we are asked about our feelings re: the modality of the course, "gaming" but not about the reality that in the tiny clip we already saw we heard an only conventional assessment of the "need to accumulate capital" as the point of "economics". I worry that the quest for greater social justice gets marginalized. I associate "gaming" with this world that conflates method and "grand rationale for being and doing".
Wouldn't it make more sense to train students in a game that simulated a business or real community setting rather than one that involved aliens?
it reminds me of lemonade stand from elementary school. In this case, I'd lik to know more about the game and how it functions. For instance, does the game have the ability to take a more advanced learner deeper into subject matter, or is the class over as soon as you reach some prescribed endpoint? Using computeres to allow for individualized pacing makes sense to me, but having computers and games replace other forms of instruction altogether is less desirable.
Simulation has been an educational tool in various forms for a long time. This video game course seems to be the next generation of this educational technique and therefore could be a useful way to convey information and create opportunities for constructing new knowledge. The online model means there are opportunities for interaction. Although this is a fantasy world of the video game, in some ways it is a great opportunity to apply economic concepts to a "real life" situation without gettng bogged down in the complexities of our everyday lives. I do have some reservations about online classes in general and what it really takes to make them effective learning environments. And, I wonder in this class where the simulation ends and the analysis comes in. I am very curious about this distance learning format and would like to learn more. My initial reactions were not positive as a reaction to something foreign, but as I think about it, I really have more questions and ideas about how it could be a rich and useful learning context and format.
Interesting, Anonymous... I know a few folks who work from home and interact with co-workers almost entirely via the Internet. People could use more help learning to be good communicators in the digital age. Maybe that could be part of the video game course somehow.
This is a great option for students who have gaming skills. As long as this course is offered in another format, I embrace this concept. Clearly this game focuses on exercising the students' critical thinking skills as they try to problem solve. Actually for many students, this would be a very exciting learning experience. A curiosity that I have is whether or not this class would be mostly males. My experience influences this concern because it seems to me that the boys in my class spend much more time playing video games than the girls. This could be a "set-back" for women since it is already proven that females feel less confident in the math science areas of study. I would be interested in how this type of course plays out?????
This gaming thing is good practice for the "brave new world" of virtual realities.
Have you heard of "Second Life"?
It's an online game where players create an "avatar" of themselves, then proceed to "live" in an entirely virtual reality.
As an elementary school teacher I used simulation games to teach about economics. The kids enjoyed the experience which was interactive and engaging. The games required working together and so challenged students to cooperate, negotiate, compromise and set boundaries. Thje games were always followed with analysis about both content - what did you learn about economics - and process - what were the challenges of working together to accomplish your goal.
My question about the university class is whether it is an indivdual or group activity and what kind of reflection would accompany the experience. Such a class could become a media literacy teaching if the reflection on the experience included the key questions we're asking - about purpose, impact, response in paricular. If it's just a game for entertainment sake then it becomes similar to showing a video in class to pass time or pacify students and as a result has little merit as a media literacy tool.
From an equity viewpoint, some students from economically deprived areas would fair worse then others.
online gaming for the college course is not sound for me. What they play game outside classroom is enough, I don't like they regard classroom learning as another kind of gaming.
Be sure to watch the movie The Hours. It is really really cool.
Francine doesn't know what she is talking about...plenty of women play video games...perhaps she is just not interested in Economy
Mike and Rachel raise an important question: what is the role of the professor in a course like this?
On the one hand, play is central to how we learn, so I like that aspect of this idea. There is nothing better than a good game.
On the other hand, I am extremely skeptical that this is in fact a good game. It looks to me like a college leaping onto the technology band wagon without giving much thought to what purpose is being served or what is potentially lost. There is a cultishness here that I resist--the idea that technology is progress, that it is good, and therefore that more is better.
It's wierd--I think I detect a kind of resistance to analysis built into the set of assumptions which drive technology. Somehow analysis and making logical sense are can be made to seem passe and dated.
The solution to the problem of technology is more technology. It's a positive feedback loop.
I can see that many of you are a little uncomfortable with the notion of "playing a game" or not getting necessary information out of an econ class.
I've made a couple of assumptions about this game which may be valid - or seriously flawed. One is that the professor has put a lot of thought into the value of this game and thinks that the outcomes are worthy of valuable class time. The second is that the planning, design and construction has education and econ goals in mind. Ted's remark about the game "Lemonade Stand" being similar to what this game appers to be is true, and if you've played "Lemonade", you'd find that although it's disguised as play, the game itself teaches valuable lessons about economics.
In response to Rachel's comment, I am not so worried about the couse instructor losing "authority" as the instructor has set up the instructional context. He/She has the opportunity to be the coach and facilitator, creating opportunities for learners to construct new knowledge. I would guess that the instructor of the course has opportunities to shape and redirect as the game moves forward, posing new questions, possibilities, and challenges. In this model, knowledge does not come from the authority pouring information ionto the minds of the students and that is a great thing. By designing the "world," the instructor becomes an active architect of the course, which is quite exciting to me.
Post a Comment