Chapter 7.

I really liked what Seymour Papert said about, "Will the child program the computer or will the computer program the child."  It almost feels like it would be the maxim of those who wrote the android operating system, and it's ability to be flexible.  It definitely is the way that a lot of my engineering friends think in terms of approaching any situation, where they will write a program to solve a difficult program, as compared to tackling the problem manually.  I guess it is kind of like learning to drive, you control the car, not the other way around.

Also, I could not help but laugh on the little blurb on open source software, because my friends who advocate the use of open source software are the guys that are completely gung ho about it, and thus, the image of some guy feeling super satisfied about writing that section into a textbook as a personal victory popped into my head.  on that topic, I will say this, that while the open source alternatives of the programs are cheaper and more available, I've found that the commercial products more often than not have a bigger financial backing and thus might be a little bit more refined and the production value will be obvious.  I'm curious to know if any body has had experience with using open source software, and if after they've used that, preferred it over the commercial counterpart, and why?

then the chapter went on to talk about video games.  I was surprised to see Civilization 3 on the list of video games, as that was a game I was completely obsessed with.  As a matter of fact, I picked up the latest version of the game (Civ 5) when it came out, and I will give it a run once in a while.  It actually is a pretty complex strategy game.  I thought it was interesting because one game of Civ lasts hours, and I wondered how that would actually translate to a classroom setting.  On that note: I actually just bought SimCity 2 weeks ago as that just came out.  While I havent been able to give that any real play time (with its disaster of a launch not allowing players to play until a week after release due to always online DRM, and maintaining the semi semblance of a life with the time not focused on school and work), the game actually taught a lot in terms of problem solving, and organizational skills.  Once again, playing the game takes a LOT of time, so effective use of time seems like it would be an issue, as we're already short on time with our lessons, so I hesitate even mentioning it in a class setting, but if given infinite time, I dont see why not.

With the complexity of what is taught at the high school level, I think it would be difficult to incorporate a video game into the classroom setting.  My main concern would be time.  Where something with a "sliding scale" like http://freerice.com (where you build your vocabulary AND every correct answer donates 10 grains of rice) could work, I struggle to find something that would be relevant in a Biology classroom, and if I did find something, I'd most definitely try to incorporate it.

While the book does talk about video games, I wonder if we could use this to engage kids by going the opposite way.  The text mentions ways that kids can learn different things from video games, but would there be real merit it approaching it as you can apply what you're learning in class to be a better gamer?  For one, I could see it being a way to reach out to kids who may not have been engaged with the content materials?

Also, how is playing a video game different than playing a game or board game in the class room?  Is there something that video games do better than their analog counterpart?  The only real thing I can think of is simulation, allowing for the addition of the visual component.

EDIT:  apparently free rice has changed since I've last been there.  Now there are different categories, including chemistry, anatomy, math, etc.  fun!