170 likes | 459 Views
Keeping the Play in Learning Games —Scot Osterweil The Education Arcade/MIT September 28, 2006 scot_o@mit.edu Play, observable throughout the animal kingdom, is the fundamental way we learn.
E N D
Keeping the Play in Learning Games —Scot Osterweil The Education Arcade/MIT September 28, 2006 scot_o@mit.edu
Play, observable throughout the animal kingdom, is the fundamental way we learn. "Now in myth and ritual the great instinctive forces of civilized life have their origin: law and order, commerce and profit, craft and art, poetry, wisdom and science. All are rooted in the primeval soil of play." —John Huizinga Homo Ludens, 1938 An example with rods and clamps… from The Children’s Machine, Seymour Papert, 1993
Through the informal activity of play, we scaffold the concepts and ideas that we will engage with formally in school.
Play has no agenda The player’s motivations are entirely intrinsic and personal. How do we channel play into learning activities while still allowing for play’s fundamentally open-ended nature? GAMES
An example: GAMES
In games we willingly submit to arbitrary rules and structures in pursuit of mastery, but only if we can continue to be playful. The promise of games is that they can structure real play with substance that we want the player to learn.
One example Zoombinis – a game about the math of the computer age: logic, combinatorics, discrete mathematics.
Sim City A good engrossing game which meets the definition of structured play leading to mastery. But What Do We Learn?
The built environment doesn’t just grow like weeds; it is the result of intentional, human efforts. The process can be managed by a single intelligence. Learning/Misconceptions
There is cause and effect in the development of cities. Cause and effect is either: one-dimensional or a black box. Learning/Misconceptions
Good planning makes for a happier, more prosperous city. This particular model of a happy city is somewhat suspect. Learning/Misconceptions
Instead of: it can all be managed from the top down; Why not: all good change is negotiated by a collective intelligence. Computer vs. non-computer games.
Computer vs. non-computer games Computer games are good for computationally dense activities: simulations, war games, fast action, puzzles, or visual complexity. Playing against other players introduces subtlety, unpredictability. We learn cooperation, collaboration, negotiation. The skills we need as planners.
Computer vs. non-computer games Thinking about the future: blending the best of both worlds On-line communities: negotiation and collaboration Computer generated challenges and visualizations
Keeping the Play in Learning Games —Scot Osterweil The Education Arcade/MIT September 28, 2006 scot_o@mit.edu