Week 2: Reeve's article

Thomas C Reeves's article ‘Do generational differences matter in instructional design’ was a joy to read. Reeve compiled many interesting facts regarding Boomer, Gen X, Gen Y/Net Gen, confirmed many of the notions. Among those that caught my eyes are:

"... most have been raised to think that they will be highly successful, even stars, although the reality is that they will find it harder than ever to get into and afford the best colleges, find a high-paying, personally-rewarding job, and buy a decent home..."

"...Today's students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach..."

Guessed this explains the very first hand experience we had with today's students in school. 

One of the things I agree very much with the author is that gaming does have its positive effects. As someone who grew up gaming, though I must admit it is highly addictive, but it does structure the way you think. And Johnson (2005) points out exactly that:

"... games force you to decide, to choose, to prioritize ... learning how to think is ultimately about learning how to make the right decision: weighing evidence, analyzing situation, consulting your long-terms goals, and then deciding."

As some games are highly intensive, I think that the thought process in gaming is so rapid that there are very few activity (especially in education), minus sports that could match this kind of intensity. Imagine the brain work-out in 2-3 hours of gaming! Although I'm for gaming, but there's always a limit to everything we do. Although it does claim to set people through the paces of analysing situation and making decision, I think gaming still could not and should not be a major substitute as a medium of education. I'll like to think of it as more of a supplement than substitute.