I'd Kill to be Educated

HEADSHOT!

I'm not wasting my time at all! I'm educating myself in the pocesses of war! I believe I've logged enough hours playing FPS games to be considered an elite soldier. Because if games are educational and I play games I'm learned, right?

Eh, well I guess it's a little more complicated than that. Or so those DHers involved in playing and gaming would have me believe. Actually I don't think that those digital humanists behind gaming for education fully know what's at work, or what should be at work. Again this week the semanics of playing and gaming in the digital humanities seemed to be a hang up for those involved. Such a pedantic bunch! Disputes about serious games being an oxymoron. C'mon, I'm pretty sure you digital humanists get the jist of where your collegues are coming from and what their meaning is. The arguments about what is important in creating a truly educational game and how we can assess learning through games seem a little more pertinent than terminology.

What is an educational game? What is a persuasive game? Are they the same? I won't lie, Bogost was slightly confusing for me. Or maybe I'm just overthinking precedural rhetoric because I'm supposed to be the expert this week. I still dont know what exactly constitutes a solid educational game. But then again, maybe there is no one formula.

Maybe I AM a becoming and elite soldier because I'm learning some of the processes behind war. I know it's wise to move from cover to cover. I know that flanking makes the most sense. I know that you shouldnt enter a room in hostile territory blind. Breaking these rules gets you dead.

So many questions... I guess we could test whether I've become and elite soldier by dropping me into an actual battle but I'm not the biggest fan of this idea.

Similar parallels might be drawn between learning history through games in the classroom. I think first we have to decide what's important when teaching history. Then we have to consider what will work within the traditional institution. As things stand I would say that understanding historical processes is what's important in history. But the student doesnt really get into that until university. Until then history is content driven. While this might not be the best practice it makes sense for the design of the school system. Schools are based on testing and assessment. Can you imagine a school system that didnt rely on pitting us against one another in a competition for those oh so gratifying marks? A school where the children had fun learning? Where they showed up to class not because they were forced into it but because it's actually a better way to spend their time... Neither can I.