Synthesizing "Computers and Technology" and "Video Games and the Future of Learning"

Alex Head
Synthesis of Two Articles
Both articles argue whether or not computers and technology are hindering or furthering education, each takes a separate and different stand but each make strong and convincing arguments.
In “Computers and Technology” Richard Ohmann argues that computers aren’t necessary tools in the classroom in order to further education. We should in fact be relying on traditional methods before too quickly turning to computers and technology to save us. Ohmann says that computers and technology are creating diversions in the classroom and students aren’t paying attention to the professor but rather sending out “e-mail messages…and otherwise multitask their way through their M.B.A’s” (Ohmann, 3). Teachers too, Ohmann finds, are annoyed and frustrated with computers and technology. Too often they crash and creating chaos and deterring “them from heavier reliance on the technology” (Ohmann, 3). Where Ohmann is arguing against leaning on having computers and technology so readily available in the classroom, Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee in their article “Video Games and the Future of Learning” push for computers and technology to aid in educating our youth. They argue that computer games are more than entertainment but way of learning. Games all the opportunity for “situated understanding” through “the virtual worlds of games” (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee, 4). These games force students to think through the mind of a soldier, a mechanic, an architect…etc it’s helping the students think in ways they usually don’t even notice. They are learning skills through doing not through hearing or being told like in a traditional classroom. The students through “playing games…” are “developing a set of effective social practices” (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee, 4). Skills that aren’t developed in a classroom are developed through these interactive computer games.
Richard Ohmann provides excellent detail about how computers and technology can be hindering to a classroom but with proper training and understanding computers and technology can be used effectively in a classroom. Most often the problem resides in the responsibility between the student and teacher. The teacher needs to know how to use the technology and what to do if something malfunctions and needs to know how to monitor the students appropriately. The student on the other hand needs to be responsible and use proper classroom conduct and use the computers and technology for what they're there for not to goof about and misuse classroom time and resources. Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee are very thorough in their argument about how computer games can be and possibly will soon be very effective in the learning process of students everywhere but they don’t propose how to make games that are effective learning tools. They have clearly don’t a lot of research on the topic but fail to give an example of a game that could be used in the classroom to help both the students and teachers. They also don’t address the problems that could be faced in a classroom with all the computers and technology available to the students, the problems that Ohmann addresses in his article.
Even though Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee don’t have an answer to what seems to be a flawless way of getting children engaged in learning I find that their argument is very strong and hard to argue against. They cite many examples of different types of games, from building a city to being a soldier, that show how the games involved different levels of thinking that often times aren’t reached in a classroom. Students are able to reflect and communicate with other students thus engaging in higher level thinking just through communication. This way of involving the students in what probably seems to them a seemingly mindless way of learning, forces them to think in ways they most likely never thought of before. The students get engaged in ways the teacher can’t.
In each article the author(s) argue for whether or not computers and technology introduce a new and helpful way to engage students in learning, both articles make a contrasting point of view but each provide strong and convincing arguments. However I do side more with Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee, in that there is more to video games than we think, there is the possibility to get the students thinking on higher levels than what they know.