Monday, August 29, 2011

playing the whole game

My current bedtime reading is "Making Learning Whole", by David Perkins (http://goo.gl/w8kj1). He advocates teaching students to "play the whole game" right from the outset, or at least a respectably complete junior version of it, rather than the common educational patterns of "elementitis" (teaching them isolated elements only, e.g. "You'll learn what math is for after you've mastered arithmetic") and "aboutitis" (teaching them *about* science rather than teaching them *to do* science).

In that vein: Is an educational "game" about astronomy going to teach students about astronomy, or to do (basic) astronomy? Is one about physics going to teach them the contents of physics textbooks, or about what it means to "do" physics?

If the latter: There may be a dramatic backstory and all, but we'd better have learners role-playing astronomers or physicists or etc. (implicitly at least, if not explicitly).

Or are we content teaching our students *about* what scientists have already figured out? That does seem to be the primary content of intro-level courses, especially for non-majors. (I suspect Perkins would criticize that approach.)

Thoughts?

2 comments:

  1. I definitely want to find ways to have students DO science rather than tell them about science. The problem is that having them DO science the way science is actually done (collection of data, analysis) would not be very interesting or motivating for students and is not terribly appropriate for a game setting.

    In order to do science without having them pore over tables of data and graphs (although this may not be completely unavoidable) I am willing to do something like grant them 'superpowers' such as the i) ability to change the mass of a star so they can observe the effects it has on planets or ii) ability to view a Red Giant at any point in its history so they can see its evolution (I'd love to hear other suggestions).

    I remember an idea you and I came up with on the flight out of FIRRP: One of the great things about video games is the motivation to freely experiment and explore because if you 'die' you can always load the game at an earlier point. We had talked about how one 'superpower' you could earn is the ability to go to an alternate universe and try something out without being worried about destroying your planet.

    From a more practical point of view, what a lot of these ideas boils down to is students using simulations and varying parameters to learn about the world.

    Sébastien

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The problem is that having them DO science the way science is actually done (collection of data, analysis) would not be very interesting or motivating for students and is not terribly appropriate for a game setting."

    -- Disagree. I think it *could* be framed in a way that was motivating: intriguing backstory, adequately accelerated time-scale to see the fruits of one's efforts, etc.

    But using "superpowers" to short out some of the drudge-work has serious advantages, too.

    ReplyDelete