Game–like learning

An example of situated learning and implications for opportunity to learn

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The theory of learning in many schools today is based on what I would call the “content fetish” (Gee 2004). The content fetish is the view that any academic area (whether physics, sociology, or history) is composed of a set of facts or a body of information and that the way learning should work is through teaching and testing such facts and information. However, for some current learning theorists, “know” is a verb before it is a noun, “knowledge” (Barsalou 1999a, 1999b; Bereiter and Scardamalia 1993; Clark 1997; Glenberg 1997; Glenberg and Robertson 1999; Lave and Wenger 1991; Rogoff 1990). Any actual domain of knowledge, academic or not, is first and foremost a set of activities (special ways of acting and interacting so as to produce and use knowledge) and experiences (special ways of seeing, valuing, and being in the world). Physicists do physics. They talk physics. And when they are being physicists, they see and value the world in a different way than do non-physicists. The same applies for good anthropologists, linguists, urban planners, army officers, doctors, artists, literary critics, historians, and so on (diSessa 2000; Lave 1996; Ochs, Gonzales, and Jacoby 1996; Shaffer 2004). Yet if much decontextualized, overt information and skill-and-drill on facts does not work as a theory of learning, neither does “anything goes,” “just turn learners loose in rich environments,” “no need for teachers” (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark 2006).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationAssessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages200-221
Number of pages22
ISBN (Print)9780511802157, 9780521880459
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2008

Fingerprint

Physics
Learning
Mandrillus
Sociology
Teaching
History

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Gee, J. (2008). Game–like learning: An example of situated learning and implications for opportunity to learn. In Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn (pp. 200-221). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802157.009

Game–like learning : An example of situated learning and implications for opportunity to learn. / Gee, James.

Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn. Cambridge University Press, 2008. p. 200-221.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Gee, J 2008, Game–like learning: An example of situated learning and implications for opportunity to learn. in Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn. Cambridge University Press, pp. 200-221. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802157.009
Gee J. Game–like learning: An example of situated learning and implications for opportunity to learn. In Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn. Cambridge University Press. 2008. p. 200-221 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802157.009
Gee, James. / Game–like learning : An example of situated learning and implications for opportunity to learn. Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn. Cambridge University Press, 2008. pp. 200-221
@inbook{453ca3a6190944a591c4793404870da8,
title = "Game–like learning: An example of situated learning and implications for opportunity to learn",
abstract = "The theory of learning in many schools today is based on what I would call the “content fetish” (Gee 2004). The content fetish is the view that any academic area (whether physics, sociology, or history) is composed of a set of facts or a body of information and that the way learning should work is through teaching and testing such facts and information. However, for some current learning theorists, “know” is a verb before it is a noun, “knowledge” (Barsalou 1999a, 1999b; Bereiter and Scardamalia 1993; Clark 1997; Glenberg 1997; Glenberg and Robertson 1999; Lave and Wenger 1991; Rogoff 1990). Any actual domain of knowledge, academic or not, is first and foremost a set of activities (special ways of acting and interacting so as to produce and use knowledge) and experiences (special ways of seeing, valuing, and being in the world). Physicists do physics. They talk physics. And when they are being physicists, they see and value the world in a different way than do non-physicists. The same applies for good anthropologists, linguists, urban planners, army officers, doctors, artists, literary critics, historians, and so on (diSessa 2000; Lave 1996; Ochs, Gonzales, and Jacoby 1996; Shaffer 2004). Yet if much decontextualized, overt information and skill-and-drill on facts does not work as a theory of learning, neither does “anything goes,” “just turn learners loose in rich environments,” “no need for teachers” (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark 2006).",
author = "James Gee",
year = "2008",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9780511802157.009",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780511802157",
pages = "200--221",
booktitle = "Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Game–like learning

T2 - An example of situated learning and implications for opportunity to learn

AU - Gee, James

PY - 2008/1/1

Y1 - 2008/1/1

N2 - The theory of learning in many schools today is based on what I would call the “content fetish” (Gee 2004). The content fetish is the view that any academic area (whether physics, sociology, or history) is composed of a set of facts or a body of information and that the way learning should work is through teaching and testing such facts and information. However, for some current learning theorists, “know” is a verb before it is a noun, “knowledge” (Barsalou 1999a, 1999b; Bereiter and Scardamalia 1993; Clark 1997; Glenberg 1997; Glenberg and Robertson 1999; Lave and Wenger 1991; Rogoff 1990). Any actual domain of knowledge, academic or not, is first and foremost a set of activities (special ways of acting and interacting so as to produce and use knowledge) and experiences (special ways of seeing, valuing, and being in the world). Physicists do physics. They talk physics. And when they are being physicists, they see and value the world in a different way than do non-physicists. The same applies for good anthropologists, linguists, urban planners, army officers, doctors, artists, literary critics, historians, and so on (diSessa 2000; Lave 1996; Ochs, Gonzales, and Jacoby 1996; Shaffer 2004). Yet if much decontextualized, overt information and skill-and-drill on facts does not work as a theory of learning, neither does “anything goes,” “just turn learners loose in rich environments,” “no need for teachers” (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark 2006).

AB - The theory of learning in many schools today is based on what I would call the “content fetish” (Gee 2004). The content fetish is the view that any academic area (whether physics, sociology, or history) is composed of a set of facts or a body of information and that the way learning should work is through teaching and testing such facts and information. However, for some current learning theorists, “know” is a verb before it is a noun, “knowledge” (Barsalou 1999a, 1999b; Bereiter and Scardamalia 1993; Clark 1997; Glenberg 1997; Glenberg and Robertson 1999; Lave and Wenger 1991; Rogoff 1990). Any actual domain of knowledge, academic or not, is first and foremost a set of activities (special ways of acting and interacting so as to produce and use knowledge) and experiences (special ways of seeing, valuing, and being in the world). Physicists do physics. They talk physics. And when they are being physicists, they see and value the world in a different way than do non-physicists. The same applies for good anthropologists, linguists, urban planners, army officers, doctors, artists, literary critics, historians, and so on (diSessa 2000; Lave 1996; Ochs, Gonzales, and Jacoby 1996; Shaffer 2004). Yet if much decontextualized, overt information and skill-and-drill on facts does not work as a theory of learning, neither does “anything goes,” “just turn learners loose in rich environments,” “no need for teachers” (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark 2006).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923516314&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84923516314&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9780511802157.009

DO - 10.1017/CBO9780511802157.009

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9780511802157

SN - 9780521880459

SP - 200

EP - 221

BT - Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -