It’s all about the learning environment, and the teacher is the chief architect of the learning environment.

I learned an awful lot about kid’s learning and instructional design by taking them out to play kickball and working at summer camps.

You must admit that video games have extra special powers for freaking adults out. You either “hate” them or believe that the only way to reach kids is by embracing the magic of games.

Every game doesn’t appeal to every kid and some kids – believe it or not – don’t play video games at all.

Sylvia expertly debunks the economic possibilities of making compelling games that kids will play that do what schools want them to do – deliver content. No amount of development money in the world will make dancing fractions interesting or educational.

It seems funny how deeply educators embrace and then hold on to myths. Sylvia developed educational games for one of (if not the only) software publisher to make real money and then was VP of development for a video game company where she developed one of the first X-Box titles. Of course, Marc Prensky and the Serious Games guys who wish and hope that video games can revolutionize education, without ever producing anything that a customer would actually pay for, must know better.

Reader Rabbit and Math Blaster (disclosure: I used to work for the company that made Math Blaster) were both invented in the 80′s. For at least a decade, they cost at least $40 a copy, and parents bought them. If they had to rely on the school market, those products never would have made money either. Now that you can buy them for $10, there is simply no money to produce new games. That’s why all you see are cookie-cutter games based on the latest licensed character that just retread old matching games with new cartoon faces.

Greg and Julia, I also think that COTS (commercial games) do teach the player lots of things. There is obviously learning going on. I think some teachers are making excellent use in their classrooms by facilitating discussion and lessons using the games as the baseline experience. It’s just the wrong conclusion to draw that someday, some design will come along and trick kids into loving algebra the same way. There is a huge gap of logic there, but still, I hear, “..if only we could harness the power of video games in education…” way too much.

I think it distracts us from exploring the real lessons of video games in education, which, as Greg succinctly put it, has to do with control and community, not twitch speed.

I mean when I was growing up. Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego was awesome it was text based but it was exiting because it was a new media. Kids now (including my self) will no longer find that game fun.

Also I don’t think is fair that you compare games like GTA4 against any education title because kids are not buying GTA4. Adults are. I got the game for my wife and when stores in California and other states only sale the game to 17+ is not fair to state kids are not interested in educational software.

But, good education software still exist but I think parents are responsible to take the time and find them. My daughter is 2 years old and we use TuxPaint and TuxMath. This games are not best looking but the interaction that my daughter and I have makes the game fun and exiting for her to learn.

I think if educational developers make games that require the parents to be part of it also. The quality of the game and experience will be alot better and kids would learn more while having fun.

You don’t have to spend millions to make an awesome game. Just make the gameplay fun. (Tetris is not an expensive franchise, but it sells Trillions).

Okay I think this is the longest post I have ever written.

P.S. I enjoy your blog!

You are correct, when it comes down to it . . . the dollars don’t make sense.

I do agree with Brian, that it is about what we can learn from the attraction and level of involvement in the gaming world. My son and daughter love Runescape and on more than one occasion I have taken time out to sit and talk with them about what they are doing and what draws them to the game – after all it certainly isn’t the most wonderfully aesthetic game out there.

My son has given some interesting insight into why he loves playing the game:

- Interaction with the other players
- Community. He is part of a clan that is, daily, involved in group events
- The challenge of increasing knowledge in order to increase “skill” levels
- He has control over his context
- It has a feel of one of his favorite time periods, the Renaissance

There is more, but it always strikes me that two of the most consistent factors in his responses are:

- Community
- Control

It is a place to build community, to work together, to struggle and succeed and fail together. It is a place where he has power over his learning and development – he can dig into what most interests him and can change his mind and go another direction.

Schools do none of this. They are places or routine and tradition. These routines and tradition go contrary to the normal human instinct which is to follow our natural curiosity and seek people to learn with. Schools isolate the student and pit him/her against all the other isolated classmates in the room. Schools are not about discovery, but learning that which is prescribed and never more (I have heard many stories from students about teachers who told them they did “too much” on their assignments and to only do what was required from then on).

No, we don’t need $100 million video games to make schools better – we need to reinvent what schooling is and to use the anecdotal, quantitative information that can be gleaned from talking with kids about the process and reasons for playing video games.