Play, Violence and Learning
In reading “The Benefits of Playing Video Games,” I began to wonder what the definition of “play” is in the context of developmental psychology, and whether or not it should be used with regard to games. It seems like pretend play or physical play are very different kinds of play from rule-based, system-driven game play, particularly video games.
For example, a group of children playing “house” generate their own story, make up their own rules and roles, solve problems, and socially negotiate in a real-world setting. However, in most video game play, the story, setting, characters, and rules are already established, i.e. you are James Bond looking for enemies to shoot. In this case, it seems like play becomes more about strategizing, accomplishing tasks, and making choices within a given set of rules. While another game might offer a totally different play experience, i.e. Minecraft, which allows players to create their own worlds, the child is still playing within a very rule-based system. In contrast, pure imaginative play could almost be said to be limitless. So, when we talk about “playing” the Sims and “playing” house, the nature of play seems very different in practice, which implies that the learning outcomes are too.
This thought isn’t really mine–the article already brings up the difficulty of generalizing video games as a single entity of play. That said, the writers were talking more in terms of the many different mechanics that make up video games that make measurement difficult. They did not necessarily mention the developmental differences between types of play (video game vs. pretend play), and I would be interested to learn more about that since each type of play is kind of like a type of mechanic. Are there certain play mechanics (I don’t mean teaching mechanics) that are better for development and learning than others?
I was also interested in the finding that people who play shooter games showed developmental strengths: “…faster and more accurate attention allocation, higher spatial resolution in visual processing, and enhanced mental rotation abilities” (p.68). I would be curious to know how much these skills were a result of the game mechanic itself vs. the narrative context. For example, if the same mechanic were used in a narrative context that didn’t involve a life-or-death scenario, would we see the same skill set, or are we already primed to pay more attention to and learn more when placed in a violent or high-stakes context? To put it bluntly and somewhat controversially, could violence, in this case, be enhancing learning?
