I challenge every teacher to ask himself that question, because if more kids wanted to play the “school game,” we wouldn’t have so many behavior problems, and dropouts wouldn’t be over 50% as they are in Chicago public schools. When a game works, it sells itself– no one need motivate the players.
When I think of it, my own, enduring love of learning depended on my having had some success at the “school game” early on. Without even trying, I had advantages entering the game that other kids in my neighborhood did not (two parents who had been to college, etc.). When competing at the school “game,” it was as though my avatar had more power and lives than most of my class mates. Because the game involved me, I ended up challenging myself, much as athletes/game competitors do. Because I enjoyed the experience o
f “winning” at the school game, I wanted to improve my skills and knowledge. School “worked” for me.We have opted not to create schools as places where children’s curiosity, sensory awareness, power, and communication can flourish, but rather to erect temples of knowledge where we sit them down, tell them a lot of stuff we think is important, try to control their restless curiosity, and test them to see how well they’ve listened to us. [The Game of School, pp. 58–59]
What web 2.0 can give kids most importantly are these empowering learning experiences:
There is quite likely no substitute for the experience of feeling empowered . . . if we hope for children to pursue learning enthusiastically within the structure of a classroom or a school. Learning and power are inextricably linked. [The Game of School, p. 65]
2.0 tools put more power in the hands of learners. This threatens the old school but should energize the rest of us, because we are position to help substantially more students create more knowledge out of real learning.
The Wikiness 
Leave a Reply