ENGL 680M: New Media

The panel I attended was “Brain, Behavior, Cognition and Gaming” with Ben Stokes, Alice Robison and William Watson. There were a number of themes that came out of the presentation that I found particularly interesting. The first was access, though not access in the same way we’ve been talking about it throughout the course. A second, related theme that I found interesting was the potential for gaming to build empathy in students; though none of the panelists discussed this directly, they all implied it in some way or other, and Stokes touched on it in his discussion of access. Third, the panelists each discussed (indirectly during the presentation and directly during the question segment) how debates about whether games should teach concepts or skills parallel traditional debates about the purpose of education.

Stokes’ discussion of access differed greatly from how we’ve been discussing access this semester. Rather than focus on physical access of video games and inequality of access across socioeconomic groups, Stokes’ talk focused on the potential for access created by video games. Stokes talked about how video games can allow students to access abstract notions that they wouldn’t otherwise have exposure to or be able to grasp through discussion and traditional classroom activities. The example he used was globalization. Students often don’t feel connected to other countries, Stokes argued, but video games can allow them to connect to other countries through imaginary relations and perhaps even role play as citizens of other countries. Though Stokes didn’t mention it directly, his talk made me consider the potential of video games to build empathy in students. The act in video games of connecting to others and even role playing other people could build empathy in players. This idea interests me because it seems so directly opposite of common criticisms of video games, that they make players violent, yadda yadda yadda. It also interests me because of the idea that education is more than dumping information into students’ heads and/or fostering students’ skills to also include character development (I know that will rub some people the wrong way—apologies).

During the question and answer session, the panelists directly addressed conflicts over what should be the focus of education. One of the panelists (I can’t remember which one—perhaps Watson?) even pointed out that questions about what video games should teach student players—skills or concepts—parallel questions about what students should be taught generally. None of the panelists argued against teaching concepts, but did point out that video games can also teach skills. They mentioned that, while a video game might not teach students everything there is to know about a profession, they have the potential to teach students how to think like someone within the profession. Moreover, students can be taught to behave like someone in a discipline. I found it interesting that Stokes, Robinson and Watson argued against the view of educational video games as simply dumping information into students’ heads, which is something we discuss throughout composition as well. For example, information dumping versus skill building comes up in writing center theory all the time, as writing center administrators and tutors constantly work against the view of the writing center as a place where students get writing information programmed into their heads. It was interesting to me that similar conflicts arise in video game discourse.