The following is a book review written for my Curriculum and Methods class (Spring 2009).
Author: Gee, James Paul
Title: What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003
225 pp., $12.21 (Hardcover), ISBN 1403961697
What can video games teach us? I must admit when I first picked up this book I was a little skeptical of what I might find. Could video games really teach our children or even me something about learning and literacy? When I say video games, I use James Paul Gee's definition, "games played on game platforms...and games played on computers...the sorts of video games in which the player takes on the role of a fantasy character moving through an elaborate world, solving various problems (violently or not), or in which the player builds and maintains some complex entity, like an army, a city, or even a whole civilization" (1). Could video games change education?
Throughout his book, Gee lists "36 Learning Principles" that good videogames include. These principles, he states, help gamers to develop identities and think critically about their environments. Furthermore, he argues that these 36 Principles can and should be applied to education. "The argument in this book is not that what people are learning when they are playing video games is always good. Rather what they are doing when they are playing good video games is often good learning" (199). Gee's statement forces me to wonder, does the "good" of video games outweigh the "bad?" Do the ends justify the means?
Gee argues that video games help children to form identities by immersing them in a specific domain. He states,
This is why it is important for teachers to pick the semiotic domains they will teach... carefully. If children are learning deeply, they will learn, through their projective identities, new values and new ways of being in the world based on the powerful juxtaposition of their real-world identities ("So, that's what I really feel, think, and value") and the virtual identity at stake in learning ("So, these are the ways of feeling, thinking, and valuing open to a scientist"). This juxtaposition is the ground on which their projective work has been done ("So, I want, for this time and place, to have been this type of scientists and person and not that type.") (66).
Gee is right on with his point of view; good classrooms do do this for children and many state standards even require it! They do submerse children in the curriculum and teach them to behave as scientists and scholars. What about the identities that videogames teach children if videogames also submerse students in another culture? One would not separate out the mode in which a subject is taught from what is actually being taught when discussing education. Why is it acceptable to do this with video games?
Is it possible to talk about the way in which video games teach but not about what they teach? Gee thinks so. For example, in Grand Theft Auto players shoot cops and other gang members and beat up prostitutes. While this is deemed "good" in the game, is this a model of behavior or value system we want our children to adopt? Some will argue that it is "just a game" and courts have said that playing shoot 'em up games are not a factor in childhood shootings. Gee argues that these different conceptions of what is "good" allows us to
...act in (or think in terms of) the role of someone else...this involves not merely taking on a new identity but sometimes thinking and valuing from a perspective that you or others may think 'wrong' from a different perspective. [S]he also has learned that experiencing the world from that perspective (in one's mind or in a video game) does not mean that [s]he accepts it in the sense that [s]he wants, in his [her] real-world identity, to adopt the values and the actions that this perspective underwrites" (143).
How does the player know whether or not to adopt these values and perspectives into real life? Who is the role model? Unfortunately, video games immerse students in domains with oftentimes-questionable values where there is little guidance from knowledgeable adults. In schools, teachers and other mentors are there to guide students through inquiry, directing them toward and away from certain concepts. While Gee argues for "affinity groups" and other support networks in gaming, these people are faceless names in chat rooms, message boards, etc. What deems them "qualified" to offer advice or direction to children looking for identity? On the other hand, teachers and other school officials have been through college, state testing and background checks deeming them reliable sources of information.
In his book, Gee also seems to tout the excellence the game Everquest (nine pages in fact) for its promotion of social interaction. Everquest is a multiplayer online role-playing game and was one of the most popular videogames (back in 2003; its popularity has since declined). In the game, a player creates their character choosing from a wide variety of "professions" and "races." Characters then choose to play in either an ideal world where only computer generated monsters can be killed (and can only kill you) or a real world where both computer generated monsters and other players can be killed (likewise, both can kill you, too) (170). Gamers play with teams of others while moving through this virtual world. They engage in conversations regarding strategy and real-world identities through message boards as well as audio chats utilizing the internet. Gee commends the abilities of these players to hack the game, analyze their created civilizations and interact with multiple peer groups. While these can be and oftentimes are valued skills in the real world, video games are not the only or best place to build them. Furthermore, Gee fails to inform readers about the dark side of Everquest. A quick google search reveals that players mockingly call the game "EverCrack" or "NeverRest." Again, is it possible to talk about the positives of a game without considering the drawbacks? Everquest has become so addicting for many people, resulting in such behaviors as payment of real money for virtual money and even suicide. Support groups for the widows and widowers or Everquest have popped up to support those men and women in any type of relationship with gamers addicted to Everquest. While anything in excess is harmful to the body and mind, video game playing oftentimes goes unmonitored. In order to lead a well-balanced life, a child needs guidance and limitations. Some would argue that reading alone for four hours a day is akin to playing video games for four hours a day. However reading is a venue other than video games that allows children to choose a variety of "professions" or engage in "strategy discussions." Athletic teams, art clubs, music groups, etc. allow students to experience a range of identities they may not assume in everyday life. All of these outlets weaken Gee's argument as many athletic, artistic and non-violent activities allow children to devise other personae.
In addition to these points, Gee leaves many more questions than he answers. Do these skills learned in video games have real world applications? How do the roles children take on in video games affect learning? Do all gamers reflect and analyze their performances? What does the actual gaming community think? Gee's book leaves many areas open for future study. After all, the study has a long way to go since Gee's writing was only based on his experience, his son's and a few random students cited throughout the book.
The book is worth a read if you are willing to superficially accept his plausible claims without putting in the extra effort of digging deeper into his points and examining your own thinking. Though he seems to cite a number of sources, his writing is certainly not scholarly, as his arguments are not backed by scientific research but rather his personal observations. I was often left guessing as to the validity of the book's points, which seemed to be more of Gee's opinion than based on any factual evidence. Overall Gee's arguments lend little support for further examining the positive benefits of video games.