Game–like learning: An example of situated learning and implications for opportunity to learn
Game–like learning: An example of situated learning and implications for opportunity to learn
复制标题
游戏式学习：情境学习的一个例子以及对学习机会的影响
DOI：
10.1017/cbo9780511802157.009
复制
发表时间：
2008
影响因子：
8.2
通讯作者：
J. Gee
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Gee
今天许多学校的学习理论都是基于我所说的“内容迷恋”（Gee 2004）。内容迷信是认为任何学术领域（无论是物理学，社会学还是历史学）都是由一组事实或一系列信息组成的，学习的方式应该是通过教授和测试这些事实和信息。然而，对于一些当前的学习理论家来说，“知道”在成为名词之前是一个动词，“知识”（Barsalou 1999 a，1999 b; Bereiter and Scardamalia 1993; Clark 1997; Glenberg 1997; Glenberg and Robertson 1999; Lave and Wenger 1991; Rogoff 1990）。任何实际的知识领域，无论是学术性的还是非学术性的，首先是一系列活动（产生和使用知识的特殊行为和互动方式）和经验（观察、评价和存在于世界的特殊方式）。物理学家做物理学。他们谈论物理。当他们是物理学家时，他们看待和评价世界的方式与非物理学家不同。优秀的人类学家、语言学家、城市规划者、军官、医生、艺术家、文学评论家、历史学家等也是如此（diSessa，2000; Lave，1996; Ochs，冈萨雷斯，and Eisby，1996; Shaffer，2004）。然而，如果许多脱离语境的、公开的信息和技能训练不能作为学习理论，那么“什么都行”、“只是让学习者在丰富的环境中放松”、“不需要教师”也不能作为学习理论（Kirschner，Sweller，and Clark 2006）。这些都是传统主义者的技能和训练的进步对应物，它们作为学习理论也是有问题的。学习者是新手，让他们在没有指导的情况下漂浮在丰富的经验中，只会引发人类寻找创造性但虚假的模式和概括的强烈倾向，
The theory of learning in many schools today is based on what I would call the “content fetish” (Gee 2004). The content fetish is the view that any academic area (whether physics, sociology, or history) is composed of a set of facts or a body of information and that the way learning should work is through teaching and testing such facts and information. However, for some current learning theorists, “know” is a verb before it is a noun, “knowledge” (Barsalou 1999a, 1999b; Bereiter and Scardamalia 1993; Clark 1997; Glenberg 1997; Glenberg and Robertson 1999; Lave and Wenger 1991; Rogoff 1990). Any actual domain of knowledge, academic or not, is first and foremost a set of activities (special ways of acting and interacting so as to produce and use knowledge) and experiences (special ways of seeing, valuing, and being in the world). Physicists do physics. They talk physics. And when they are being physicists, they see and value the world in a different way than do non-physicists. The same applies for good anthropologists, linguists, urban planners, army officers, doctors, artists, literary critics, historians, and so on (diSessa 2000; Lave 1996; Ochs, Gonzales, and Jacoby 1996; Shaffer 2004). Yet if much decontextualized, overt information and skill-and-drill on facts does not work as a theory of learning, neither does “anything goes,” “just turn learners loose in rich environments,” “no need for teachers” (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark 2006). These are the progressive counterpart of the traditionalists’ skill-and-drill, and they, too, are problematic as a theory of learning. Learners are novices, and leaving them to float among rich experiences with no guidance only triggers human beings’ great penchant for finding creative but spurious patterns and generalizations that send them down