In my view, it’s not “relevance,” that’s lacking for this generation, it’s engagement. What’s the relevance of Pokémon, or Yu-Gi-Oh, or America’s Idol? The kids will master systems ten times more complex than algebra, understand systems ten times more complex than the simple economics we require of them, read far above their grade level – when the goals are worth it to them. On a recent BBC show “Child of our Time,” a 4-year-old, who was a master of the complex video game Halo 2, was being offered so-called “learning games” that were light-years below his level, to his total frustration and rage.
So how can and should they – and we – do this? As with games, we need to fund, experiment, and iterate. Can we afford it? Yes, because, ironically, creating engagement is not about those fancy, expensive, graphics, but rather about ideas. Sure, today’s video games have the best graphics ever, but the kids’ long-term engagement in a game depends much less on what they see, than on what they do and learn. In gamer terms, “gameplay” trumps “eye-candy” any day of the week.
Marc Prensky, “Engage Me or Enrage Me” What Today’s Learners Demand, www.marcprensky.com, Feb 2005.
