Super Mario Brothers

As a kid (and okay as an adult) I loved video games. I played since I was little and am still kickin it on my PS3. After a quick run at my favorite game, it occurred to me how much a video game is like our theorists, and hey, kids, especially today, love video games! A video game is like a constructivist lesson in that a.) a child will only want to play if the game content is interesting to that child, b.) when a child plays a video game, they are in charge of learning how to play a video game, it is the child who must figure it out c.) each level is a little harder than the last one (scaffolding), but not too difficult that the child cannot complete that level (ZPD) d.) the ultimate win of the game, is the big idea, where the child was in charge the entire time, however the game guided them to learn new techniques and skills to become a better player and ultimately win the game. As a teacher, I hope that all of my students will want to “play my video games”, however when teaching a diverse set of students, when I am including one group, am I automatically not including the other groups? Also, I hope that it is primarily children playing video games in my classroom and not me showing them how to advance to the next level, but after student discovery of a big idea takes place, does that mean a mini-lesson of banking system must occur to validate the student’s discovery? In the few constructivist classrooms I have been in, I feel sometimes that the big take away is substantially different from student to student. Because of these questions, I am eager to get back into an elementary classroom and see this video game live.