Hall of Fame

Gee

James Gee, a Professor in the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin, added some academic credibility to the games in learning debate in his book What Videogames Have to Teach us about Literacy and Learning (2003).

He has taken 36 principles from games design and applied them to learning. This takes the debate on from the pure evangelism of Prensky to a theoretical plane, where principles can be out to the test.

36 learning principles
Gee is a fan of computer games and the book extracts 36 learning principles from game playing to show us that games have much to teach us about learning. In this he succeeds, although many of his principles are debatable.

He describes his experiences in learning how to play computer games. As a digital immigrant (entered their world), rather than digital native (brought up in their world), he duly acknowledges that he finds games difficult; but his joy in mastering Deux Ex or Half Life is evident, and this voyage of discovery is accompanied by insightful reflections on their worth as learning experiences.

Another strength of the book is his observations on collaboration in games. People who do not play computer games often misunderstand this. They will never have used cheats, walkthroughs, read the magazines and visited game sites. Kids play games together online with people they have never met and engage in a rich community of practice (Gee prefers the term 'affinity group').

By abstracting out his 36 key principles he allows us to see how each can be applied in learning without committing to the full-on 3D virtual environment game. These principles cover learning to learn how to play games, lots of principles around success through failure, as well as exploding the myth that game playing is a solitary, anti-social affair.

Semiotics
One downside of the analysis is the fact that he’s a disciple of the semiotic movement. This is the theoretical grounding for many of his 36 principles. However, if you're not a follower of 'semiotic domains' or 'text-internal relationships' you can cluster this stuff under 'media literacy'. Much is made of a new type of visual literacy in the form of symbols, images, video and so on. This is valid to a degree, but falls down somewhat when applied to the business of acquiring the skills of reading or writing, which have standard practices that must be learned in order to function in most professions and, indeed, in everyday life.

However, even if you disagree with the sociological theorising, there is still much to gain from this book, as many of his principles stand alone from his semiotic theory. Gee is at least open and honest about his underpinning theory, pointing out that in three major areas 'many disagree with each one and, indeed, all three.'

Conclusion
He takes the high ground on games, showing us their virtues, but few of their vices.

Again, like Prensky in Digital Game-Based Learning (see review below) he's light on counter-arguments. Games may be wonderful, but are still unsuitable for many types of calm, reflective learning. He's also a little short on real recommendations about how games can be practically used in learning, making this a highly theoretical book but low on practical advice.

This is an excellent, although altogether different text from David Prensky's Digital Game Based Learning. It is essential reading along with Trigger Happy and Joystick Nation for those who are convinced, or need convincing, that games have much to offer education and training.

Bibliography
Gee J. (2003) What Videogames Have to Teach us about Literacy and Learning, Palgrave