My rough notes from Professor James Paul Gee's keynote. I'll come back and synthesize later :)


the old literacy gap -- too many kids don't read as well as they could

the applications gap -- even children who do well in school and can pass tests can't apply their knowledge in the real world

the new tech-savvy gap -- new technology in schools doesn't automatically minimize the gap.

the new knowledge gap -- knowing how to use the new technology. what you do with technology matters.

the innovation crisis -- kids need to learn innovation and creativity.

all of these gaps need to be addressed holistically. and games are one way to do this and to better situate learning and literacy.

empathy for a complex system. simulations are what scientists use to learn and conduct research, but games are even better because players are inside their simulations and have an immersive perspective on that world (which scientists generally don't have when they conduct simulations). However, studies show that scientists think as though they are.

**typical of my inability to focus, I stopped paying attention because I got wrapped up reading comments on a gamer site about how to succeed at playing Ayiti

back to Gee's talk.

games put performance before competence, meaning that you're allowed to try something even if you haven't developed full knowledge of it (unlike traditional schooling)

World of Warcraft -- example of a "cross-functional team" where every team member has deep expertise in one area, but also need to understand other team member's functions to integrate all the skills. "understand your expertise from other people's perspective"

School doesn't develop these soft skills very well, but work expects them.

generational assumption -- if i can't understand the book, i can't use the tool. older people always want to read the manual first, even though often now the manual won't make sense if you haven't used the tool/played the game yet.

kids often don't do well in school because they have no context for the complex academic language -- the language in school is not situated in the world in which kids live. and the kids aren't given the opportunity to experience the subject matter in a way that gives meaning to the words used to describe it. (If you DO geology, you will get the language of geology).

assessment in games works because it starts with the concrete and is then abstracted. "tracking what you've done AFTER you've done it"

games are motivating BECAUSE they involve learning. Learning and mastery of something is deeply rewarding for us as people. They also foster failure that produces learning, which is not how failure in school is structured!

research shows that kids love competition in games but hate competition in school. Possibly because in games, competition is a source of collaboration.

the interactivity and inquiry that games allow are another reason that they are engaging -- people like problem solving spaces :)

games as opportunities for customization and production -- you can make the game as much as you play it. And making the game allows kids to learn about the underlying structure (more inquiry)

games allow identity construction -- "new learning creates new identity" -- so games are a way for learning to be applied through identity, and to use identity as a way of making choices and understanding our perspectives.

Good games allow us to make big choices. So does good curriculum.

Games are pleasantly frustrating, like many of the other good things in life.

Cycle of expertise -- practice until absolute mastery. Then apply in a situation where it doesn't solve the problem. Now practice that until you're sick of it. And over and over.
(This could be the basis, in the future, of kids being part of curriculum development.)

**This reminds me of playing the violin and cello as a little kid. My mom used to always say that practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes practice. Only perfect practice makes perfect. I can hear her saying "I told you so" all the way from Virginia.