Gee's "Deep Learning Properties of Good Digital Games"

James Paul Gee’s focus in “Deep Learning Properties of Good Digital Games” is to examine the properties of entertainment digital games that encourage learning, relating both to skills development and commitment to the game. He argues that digital games are actually problem-solving spaces that encourage learning, but these games cannot be used for learning if certain properties are not present. He then discusses these properties, some of which are discussed below.

Gee argues that gaming is about problem solving and that players can become emotionally and personally committed to their goals for the game. He connects this to learning by referencing research that suggests people learn more when they have an emotional attachment or something is at stake for them.

Gee explains that emergent properties are the rule-like properties in games that players can control or use as they choose.  This relates to one property Gee discusses about microcontrol. When players are able to microcontrol one or more property in a game, they not only gain power, but then the game also becomes a potential space for players to embody.

But in order for a game to be conducive for learning by experience, Gee argues it must have the right conditions. Some of these conditions include being structured by specific goals, allowing for immediate feedback so users can assess their errors/expectations, and the need to apply experiences to other situations.

Although learning can often come from experience, Gee argues that can be too concrete. He says that games can act as models that bridge concrete and abstract ideas. Models, he says, “are basic to human play” (73).

Another property Gee lays out are “effectivity-affordances,” which are what make games more than “eye candy.” He explains an affordance is a feature of the game that allows for action, while the effectivity is the action that can actually happen. He uses an example from WoW in which some animals can be skinned for their leather, but only certain people have the skill to skin animals. (Some animals cannot be skinned so they are not an affordance, and some players do not have that skill so they lack the effectivity to do so.)

Lastly, Gee argues that games that encourage learning allow for multiple trajectories for a player; this means the player can choose different options and make different decisions that will alter their journey through the game, giving it personal meaning.

Gee explains that all of these properties together can create “powerful experiences that compete with experiences in the real world precisely because experiences in the real world, at their best—when we humans feel control, agency, deep learning, mastery—meet these properties” (78).

There was something that Gee mentioned in his conclusion that I was also concerned about while reading: it’d be nice if there were more games that promoted “good” learning that weren’t army or warrior-based. (Because if these are the real world experiences that good games are creating, I’m not sure how they can transfer to daily problem solving my students must do.)