I’m currently teaching an online graduate course in Digital Game Based Learning. It has included some great discussions about all kinds of things.

Erin Lerouge (one of the class members) wrote a few comments on Seymore Paperts classic article, “Papert, S. (1998). Does Easy Do It? Children, Games, and Learning. [Soapbox]. Game Developers Magazine(Game Developer magazine), p88.”. I’ve copied a few of her comments here:

In this article, Papert argues how kids like video games because they are hard. Because of this kids learn how to learn without necessarily knowing it. This is the importance of video games, they are hard but they are interesting and this keeps kids playing. This differs from school where it can be boring and it tends to be easy. Most of the edutainment games are trying to trick kids into learning but in the end, bore them and they give up. He believes this is unfair, tricking kids into learning through so-called games.

…

Students need to know how to learn. They cannot be passive participants in their education. Students should take some responsibility for what they learn.

…While I agree with Papert that students should take some responsibility for their learning, we do have a system to work within. It would be great if we could, to some degree, eliminate grades and allow for more multi-age learning based on interest and level of knowledge. I also agree that exercise after exercise is not an effective way to teach. It doesn’t help students develop an understanding of what is important and what might not be so important. However, I do not believe getting rid of a curriculum completely is a good idea. A curriculum is a document that gives some idea of what students should be learning and when. Without it, there are many important things that teachers could leave out if they or students are allowed to decide everything they want to learn.

I would tend to agree with you that curriculum is necessary.

I’d even go so far to say that IT (curriculum) is what ultimately distinguishes formal from informal education.

However, the more I learn about all of this, the more I am convinced that kids start off in school already knowing how to learn – it’s how humans survive and how humanity has advanced. That we dominate so much of the planet is evidence of how good we are at it. Given that, the focus and challenge in formal education should shift. I have come to believe that we actually teach kids NOT to learn in school; to be passive rather than active in their learning; to stop guessing (i.e. generating theories); and to stop fiddling (i.e. experimenting). I am seeing more and more kids in my first year university classes who expect to be spoon-fed everything, who aren’t motivated to try things on their own, and who have little curiosity. They ask questions, but if I tell them how to find the answer rather than the answer itself, they lose interest.

What we really need to do is to stop trying to control kids and learning, and instead help them get better at what they are already trying to do. Give them guidance; help them learn how to build better theories (not just to ape the teacher’s); help them learn to make better experiments (not just learn the current one “right” way).

I know this makes many teachers (and administrators) very uncomfortable. I have often heard educators talk about the need for classroom control, and while I realize that total mayhem is not conducive to learning, the kind of “control” many educators envision when they say the word is closer to military order and obedience, and that’s not conducive to learning either.

Be the first to like.

Like

Unlike