Ouch! I'm sorry to anyone who read the previous post before now (I'd be curious if anyone actually did). Posting at 1:30 in the morning as my head is swimming is not a good idea. Sorry.

I've gone back and corrected some of the UGLY grammar and sentences so it should read a little easier. Posting past midnight, no more I say - no more.

That statement could sure apply to my life, or to the Democratic turn across the country or to any teacher's lesson planning. Despite staying up until 2:00 watching election results, I adapted another instruction session using gaming strategies today. And, like most first time lessons, it had a few kinks - but should work out well.

Here are some of the gaming strategies used:
- Encouraging inquiry
- Open ended exploration
- Context bridging from instruction to application
- Scaffolding
- Personalization

These goals worked well and the students did a solid job of applying the research process to individual sources.

The students were given a research question and asked to find a source within the given resource. The students quickly ran through the process to reach the goal - this action makes since within the context of games. Given a specific end point the students work to reach that goal to complete the task or goal as quickly as possible. The challenge, as instructors, is to pull back the layers and expose the process more. Question the students. Find out why they took the path they took. When asked the students were able to explain the choices they made and provided good examples for other students.

The one piece that challenged the lesson and knocked me down was the struggle the students had getting started. The lesson tried to provide an open ended exercise for the student to explore and find their own way. Sounds good on paper doesn't it? The lesson did not clearly define the learning goals for the lesson. And due to the large degree of personal exploration and exploration that the lesson encouraged, the students struggled to get started in the activity.

Open ended lessons are a good gaming strategy, but the students struggle without a framework. I think that providing the students a framework for the activity does not take away from the productivity of gaming strategies. In a game, players test and discover the physics of the world/game they are playing. For the in-class activity, the students were not aware of the activities "physics."

I'm working with the other librarians to modify it and help define the "physics" and framework. I'm teaching it again in 11hours so I'll post about the success/failure again after the class.

Paul

Okay, so that last post sounded good (I hope), but what does that mean for us in the classroom? Here are my 5 tips on how to get started using games in the classroom and library session:

Start small. You do not need to have a full game up and running or create your own product. Start with using some gaming strategies (see last week’s post) to modify existing lessons.

Talk with students, find out what they like to play and why. This not only gives you some info to draw on, but helps validate video games for them.

Keep traditional outcomes in mind. When I created my first lesson based on game strategies, I knew specifically what game strategies I was using and mapped the lesson to ACRL Information Literacy Standards. Using traditional standards begins the dialogue with other faculty.

Don’t be afraid to fail. My first lesson was rough. The students were all over and confused by the lack having a set process to proceed with. Just like gamers, we can learn from our failures and try again.

Remember all games teach. Once outside the classroom there is still learning to do. Expose new people to games (I’ve brought my DS Lite to work many times) and help all students see there is a learning process that mirrors life in games.

Paul

Are Video Games Evil?

I saw this on Friday from Steven Bell’s blog and on Monday The Chronicle’s Wired Campus blog picked it up. It is a good article and a great introduction to the educational uses of games for someone new.

Video games are easy to target, just as music, comics, even (as the article mentions) pinball were in the past. As I’ve written before, when a fringe medium moves into the mainstream there is an adjustment period. The current controversy over Rockstar’s Bully is a good example of this. Without playing the game, many have cried “murder simulators” and “evil.” The article makes a very important point that games provide a lot more than just fodder for gunfire (laserbeams, chainsaws, or insert violent stereotype here). We can see this as the extreme, but the difficulty is that this is how some parents, administrators and faculty feel about video games. I hope I’m in the minority, and someday I believe I will be, but I can name a handful faculty at my college that do not let their children play video games let alone bring them into the classroom. For those situations, it is a matter of framing the dialogue. “Introducing software” that helps teach higher level skills and critical thinking – is welcomed. Just changing the language and jettisoning any preexisting connotations is a start.

The article makes the wonderful point that video games “do” teach, it is up to us to determine the “what” and “how.” Because we are teaching digitally immersed students, games are just a way to communicate through an understood medium. The article draws this comparison as well, DDR is Twister, The Sims is just playing house. If we view video games as just another instructional technology, why shouldn’t we incorporate it into class? Games are not the “magic bullet” but they should be another tool in our repertoire as teachers. Not every lesson should involve video games and/or strategies, just as not every lesson should be lecture or small group. Or worse, video games should not be the new power point. Part of the motivation for games is the ‘fun’ factor, once we suck that out they are just another software package forced on students.

The idea of testing a hypothesis to a problem based on the given information, and testing again once it fails sounds great and it is just as valid running through the fields of Hyrule or the streets of Liberty City as it is in a traditional classroom. We just need to continue to find ways to tap into that interest and exploration. The work of Steven Johnson, James Paul Gee and others are included in the discussion.

The one idea that I challenge is the fact that gamers are bound to the rules of the game and that teaching to succeed with the existing bounds is a key piece of video games. While understanding the dynamics of an environment (either the physics of a game world or the politics of the regular world) is important – and often necessary for success, a gamers ability to reinterpret those limits is the difference between good and excellent. Pushing the boundaries, discovering new combinations and exploiting new ideas is the result of the freedom and motivation that games provide. Getting our students to think beyond the defined boundaries of any discussion is a wonderful step toward success. As a librarian, getting my students to think beyond one article or one source and critically analyze is a great step in information fluency.

Games are so much more than hand-eye coordination. If you are reading this blog, you hopefully know that as well. Getting this article into the hands of those unconvinced is a great start to helping our digital students succeed.

Bibliographic Gaming

Shameless plug #1, blogging about my other blogging posts. Okay, this is the first and only time (maybe) that I'll link to a blog post on another site. I just joined the blog last week. And since I haven't mentioned it here yet so it's fair game. I'm happy to be bringing my ideas to a wider audience. Check it out.

Okay, this is the last post on the Federation of American Scientists report. Milking three posts out of it is enough. But really, when government scientists tell us that games are good and can be helpful in education (neither of which should be shocking) we should take heed.

"Educational games potential for teaching higher-order skills under appreciated"

While I believe this is true, I think that there is hope. Although it is hard to assess higher learning skills, games can help. The assessment is built into the game. It is not a grade, it is progressing to the next level or completing a quest. It is different from the mold, and harder to report to administrators - but it is possible. If a student of mine completed all the steps in the game/quest/assignment and was able to explain the path they took it can easily be mapped to traditional standards. I did just this with my website evaluation lesson (I'll post the lesson soon).

The report also states that there are few clear outcomes for educational games. I do not agree with this. As a parent and an educator it is very possible to determine the outcomes for most games. The challenge is that it requires the parent/teacher to play the game. I've rambled off a list of skills that our son is working on as he plays DS. With knowledge of the game and knowledge of outcomes, mapping them is not complicated.

"Train teachers to support game-based learning"

Welcome. Let's work together, along with a growing community to do just that. Librarians, we are teachers. You all know that. Games and gaming strategies is one way that we can improve our teaching, engage our students, and have some fun along the way. I'm glad that the government agrees.

I started talking about this report last week, and now that my comp exam is over and my brain is back, I'll finish up with a few other thoughts on the findings and recommendations the report had.

The report suggests that the game industry modify commerical games to target specific learning goals. Some individual teachers are doing this already. They are modding existing computer games (Never Winter Nights for PC is one example) to create lessons out of them. Many existing PC games come with a toolset or some game/level design functions. These could be used to create lessons through games. The challenge with this model is the time involved. Teachers that like games would spend the time to create, but others who like the idea but don't know how need something that is more 'plug and play.' The internet and online learning communities could help distribute what others are already creating. There needs to be enough of a business incentive for game companies to modify existing games, and state and regional educational systems could provide that incentive.

The report suggests the game industry look for new markets like after school programs. There is a discussion going on this week (see my post on Bibliographic Gaming for more) about pathways to games and one of the speakers is from a large after school program. If our students are playing games at home and in after school programs, and learning as they enjoy the game, how can a traditional classroom keep their interest. Marc Prensky talks more about this in his book "Don't Bother Me Mom - I'm Learning." We as educators, need to be aware of these influences and passions and work to apply them within our classrooms.

The report also contains recommendations for schools and instrutional uses, but that's for later.

It's official. I'm posted the blog onto a growing wiki of other academic librarian blogs. Research Quest is now out there for a wider audience. It's also a little more pressure to keep up. Check out some other blogs at:
http://www.academicblogs.net/wiki/index.php/University_Librarians

If you are new here, feel free to dig around in the back posts. All the posts from 2006 are focused on Research Quest's mission. But the posts from 2005 about random personal stuff. I originally started this blog as a personal blog, but changed the focus in the summer of 2006 as I focused my own research. The 2005 posts are not really library related, but the give a feel for who I am as a person. They are the prequel posts, nothing too damning though. I'm okay with providing the extra window into my life... it should provide a context for who I am and what I say. In the interest of full disclosure, I did delete a few posts dealing with Star Wars and Fantasy Football. Although Fantasy Football is the librarian's sport... but more on that another time.

Here's the official wiki entry for "Research Quest" if you haven't seen it yet:

Research Quest provides information, suggestions and commentary on using video games and game strategies in information literacy and education. Research Quest also monitors academic literature and news from the video game industry and fan base for new educational applications.

Video games require the player to fill in the information gap in order to progress. The research process is the same. The end result is known, whether it is to win the game or save the world or write the paper or complete the project. What paths the game/research takes along the way is unknown, this is the information gap. Research Quest is designed to help draw those parallels and help students learn.

Research Quest is created and maintained by Paul Waelchli, a librarian at a small Midwest liberal arts college and lifelong gamer.

Some mainstream media coverage on the Federation's report on education & video games.

Videogames in the Classroom? - Newsweek Education - MSNBC.com: "“When you show a child a traditional educational game, they’ll roll their eyes,” says Kay Howell, a coauthor of the study. “But I don’t think they roll their eyes because it’s learning; I think it’s because there’s such a huge and obvious gap in quality compared to what they play at home.” "

I love that quote. That is where most educational games go wrong. Powerpoint Jeporady and quiz games miss the mark of really USING games to teach. Don't get me wrong, quiz games are good for mixing up review activities and as assessment/evaluation. But there is more that we can use games and games strategies for. It's what games do and what they ask us to do that is useful, not just hiding learning in something "fun."

Okay so when I said I would post again "“later tonight"” two days ago I was referring an old druid calendar. Sorry. I’m wrapped up in studying (read: CRAMMING) this week for my comprehensive exam on Saturday. But I did start looking through the powerpoint summary, it'’s a lot easier to read eating lunch than the full 40+ page report. I did put together a few comments and ideas last night before I went to bed and since they still look good in the light of day...

The list below should be no surprise to any one reading some of the literature on gaming strategies in education, but the report is giving it broader coverage. The comments on each feature identified by the report are mine.

1. Clear learning goals: What every educator strives for. What are the students walking out with? What do I want them to know? In planning any lesson/instruction session it is important to know what the goals/objectives are.

2. Practice opportunities: Homework. We teach and want to give students the chance to practice those skills and demonstrate understanding and mastery. If only homework would be as fun or at least as captivating as games, or at least that's the complaint typically heard. Education research into gaming strategies is trying to do just that…

3. Monitor progress, provide continual feedback: Sounds like assessment and evaluation to me. What level are you on? What'’s your score? Did you find that item? Switch "level"” with "“chapter"” and these all could be reference questions.

4. Move player to higher challenges: Upper division courses, sequenced classes, even moving students from popular magazines to scholarly journals does this. Players are used to having the challenge increase in later levels in games, but not always in education. In a game they value the process (playing) and the end product enough to keep going when the challenge increases. The amount of value (or lack of) placed on the process and product in education is an important discussion for another time, but one that is necessary in relating gaming strategies to education.

5. Encourage inquiry and questions: How many times have you stood at the front of a class waiting for someone to ask a question, or answer one. How can we bring the same type of probing inquiry and exploration from games into library instruction? Research is all about probing, but unlike a game, it is usually seen as a hurdle and hassle in reaching the end boss (or final draft).

6. Contextual bridging: We are always looking for “real life” applications of the concepts that we are teaching. Why evaluating sources is important in your daily life? I'’m always working on showing applications of what we are doing and how it is relevant. Games continually do this. In a game, you learn a new skill or get a new item and a new area is accessible to you. There is a direct application of that skill that entices the player to try it out.

7. Time on task: Anyone that'’s seen that stats that show students rarely move beyond the first page in Google or EBSCO know that a little more time (combined with some of that inquiry in #5) would do everyone a lot of good.

8. Motivation: Need I say more…

9. Scaffolding: A favorite educational theory of mine that I'’ve gone back to time and again in my Library Science program and in my daily work. Educators build on previous experience and knowledge and introduce new material that expands the existing understanding.

10. Personalization: Not a huge learning concept, but the ability for a student to control their own pace and growth is beneficial for students learning and testing new concepts. Like anything, when the user feels ownership they are more invested. Ever encourage a student to pick a topic that they are interested in? Personalization.

11. Infinitely patient medium: If only databases and their "“time out"” limits would be as patient.

Combine patience with the motivation (#8) to practice (#2) and you have a pretty successful student who continues to challenge(#4) themselves and explore (#5) new ideas. Sounds good doesn't it… Stick around.

Summit on Educational Games

Here is the direct link to the report from the Federation of American Scientists. Later tonight I'll start (1 of 4 posts) some of my thoughts, comments and applications to the findings.

Lots of good info that fits nicely into the mission of this site: using games and gaming strategies to help students learn and research.

EDIT: Okay, thinking about this idea for the past few days I've started to realize who my audience is. This column idea was first thought of as directed at gamers and would allow me to get practice writing before doing something for educators and librarians. But really, why would should a gamer care? They already care about games. I'm out to get others (educators) interested in using games and gaming strategies not those already emersed in those experiences.
I think the column is still a good idea, but I need to adjust it for the correct audience. Oh, and getting people to read it would be a good thing too.

*****
It's 2:00 am and I'm up kicking around ideas and can't sleep. Here's a column proposal that I've been thinking about for the past few days... thoughts?

The "Rotting" Brain (suggested title, but open to ideas)

There is a growing body of literature about the positive impact video games and gaming, but much of it is authored by scholars and researchers. The "Rotting" Brain is a column written by a life long gamer and researcher analyzing the positive aspects of our passion.

The "Rotting" Brain column analyzes what video games are teaching us. As far back as playing Moon Lander on the Commodore VIC-20, video games had something to teach. Throughout each generation of consoles, video games not only evolved in graphics and gameplay, but in the content of what they teach. The "Rotting" Brain looks at what games have taught us over the years and what they are teaching us today. The column discusses the scope of the current video game research and expands the current audience. The column discusses the positive educational aspects of gaming both through reviewing the current studies and through personal reflection. The "Rotting" Brain also refutes the impact of current video game studies with negative findings. Video games develop the mind, not rot it, and The "Rotting" Brain is here to show how.

I've been meaning to post this for a while, but it is hard to keep posting when I'm only talking to myself. I do enough talking to myself. Typing to myself only reminded me of how little I'm doing. But that's not entirely true... during the first eight weeks of our semester myself and the 3 other instruction librarians taught 148 information literacy sessions. I lead or assisted in 49 of the 148 sessions, or about 1/3. So that and 2 small kids has contributed to my lack of posts.

But really it's the talking to myself part, that just gets me. I relaunched this blog in the summer as a place to collect and sharpen my ideas. It sounded great, but really it means I think my ideas are important enough to write about. Now I believe that regardless of how important they are, just writing them is the start. I am also working on getting my name out in both gaming and education gaming blogsphere (I think that's the first time I wrote that buzz word, hopefully the last). The effort of getting my name out there, and maybe even some writings, means I've got to keep up the home front.

And so, as of November 1st, I will be blogging 5 times a week. Sounds good- yes, optimistic - certainly. But in order to follow through I'm setting forth this schedule:

Monday: Notes on Current Readings
Tuesday: Video Game Reflections
Wednesday: News Updates & Commentaries
Thursday: Game Strategy Applications
Friday: Analysis & Commentary on Current Research
Saturday: News Updates & Commentaries (yes that's 6 times a week... optimism right)

There it is. Laying down the person gauntlet. Until 11-1 though I'll still be sporadic since I'm finishing up a second master's degree.

It’s been almost a month since my last post. And I could throw out a lot of reasons why I’ve delayed getting back: 1) getting ready for fall semester; 2) creating a website; 3) watching 4 seasons of the Sopranos; 4) just damn tired. Really the biggest reason is a dark cloud that’s hug over me for the last month. My last post was done during the days after the death of my Godson. 12 years old. 12 years old. It has hit me hard.

My last interaction with him was a phone call with him where we spent time talking about gaming strategies for a RTS Star Wars game. We talked about managing resources, splitting units, and tactics for swarming the opposition. It was a wonderful conversation. An equalizer. It didn’t matter what our age or our relationship, we were able to talk about this common bond in detail. We were friends and I miss him.

Heck just getting a 12 year old to talk about resource management in order to produce a variety of units, military tactics and agriculture options is a good thing. And that is exactly what Steven Johnson talks about in his book, “Everything Bad is Good for You.” The cognitive forecasting and planning that is required for success is a good thing. Johnson calls it “telescoping.” It’s the ability and necessity to plan multiple moves ahead and plan for alternative routes. This is one of the many reasons, gaming is good.

Luke could forecast out a variety of possibilities while playing the CPU or others online. He learned strategies for success through experimentation, multi tasked and monitored various action points and anticipated all of them. The cognitive level of this play helped create a wonderful person full of love and excitement, who was always looking for ways to stay interested in school.

Both Prensky and Johnson talk about why current students are bored and turned off with traditional educational practices. And really give the previous paragraph, who could blame them. Our job, MY job is to help find ways to connect these students to the content and get and keep them interested.

My time with Luke told me a lot of lessons about faith, love, family, and education. Thanks Luke. There’s other places to talk about the grief, guilt, faith and love feelings lingering. But I hope that with these discussions and actions I can help shift the education prespective.

“ultimately all about filling in that information gap (p.30).”

As I librarian, this is what I spend most of my days doing. I help students fill in their information gaps. The have an assignment and need some information to complete it. The extent of information needed varies, but the need remains constant. The downside is that students are much more eager to explore a game than they are to explore an assignment.

“Filling in that information gap” is what the research process is all about. You know the end result: win the game, beat the boss, save the world/ or write the paper, complete the project. You may know the start, but what paths your game/research takes along the way is unknown. Some sources lead you to others; prioritize results/quests; evaluate information/characters to trust. Place those tasks in a game and people are interested, lay it out as an assignment/paper and well you know the results.

I think there is some work within those parallels… more on that tomorrow.

“tyranny of the morality play.” P.13

Every medium has gone through this. In the 1970’s, the violence in Bonnie & Clyde touched off a debate about violence in Hollywood. In the late 80’s and early 90’s, N.W.A. and Ice-T’s Body Count kicked off another debate about violence in lyrics. Even crusading lawyer, Jack Thompson, got started on the national moral stage with his fighting 2 Live Crew and Body Count’s “Cop Killer.” And now violent movies and games are accepted as part of a larger body of work in each medium, and neither medium is judged solely on it’s controversies. So I guess video games get their turn.

But Johnson argues that it is not the morality, or lack of, that make video games valuable. It is the cognitive effect they have on the players. So much time and effort is spent discussing the content, that little time is given to the context. The act of thinking, planning, and playing is valuable. Some of the content is most certainly not suited for all ages (that is why the ESRB exists and rates each game), but the skills the games can teach provide the foundation for learning. Yes we as parents, educators and the public need to be aware of the ratings and the content but we should not eradicate them and cast them off as meaningless wastes of time.

Video games thrive on “seeking” as Johnson states (p.37). There are many layers of activity (both on screen and in brain) going on as a player moves through a game and that “seeking” is what keeps players playing. What’s next? What’s needed? How do I move forward, complete this goal? Johnson states that video games are “ultimately all about filling in that information gap (p.30).”

Judge voids new law on video games

I missed this ruling while I was on vacation. The video game law that my old employer, the State of MN, passed was over turned.

The ruling follows the previous rulings mentioned in my posts and is not a surprised based on that case law.

Through the analysis of social informatics and the three key segments of design, uses, and consequences, video games have the potential to create positive value in each. The various designs of video games provide a range of stimulating experiences that provide positive value. The uses, whether escapist entertainment, social interaction, mental release or education, all contain positive value to the player and culture as a whole. The consequences provide both potential positive and negative affects and require further research to conclusively there is a completely positive or negative consequence to video games.

An economic analysis provides video games contain economic value on multiple levels. There is clearly a market value to the information provided and the artistic expression contained within video games. The billions of dollars spent by consumers world wide on the industry, provide concrete evidence of their market value. Video games also have increased economic value as primary goods. The positive information learned from experiencing video games should be classified as a primary good since the skills help lead to a successful and rational life. This evidence for a primary good is offset by the potential of the video game information to do harm, which results in an irrational life.

Taken together there is strong evidence that video games do contain both artistic and intellectual value. Because video games are determined to have value, there is no support to treat and regulate video games any different than any other established media, art or information. If negative consequences can be directly and conclusively proven then there may be a negative value and provide justification for separate treatment under the law. But until that time, the current regulation legislation will continue to fail under constitutional scrutiny.

The framework analysis established a recognized value to video games that does not require and should not allow separate regulation through the legal or social system. The recommended method to control the violent content without infringing on others access or expression is to use the parental controls built into modern video game systems. Computers already have control software available. By November all the new consoles, Xbox 360, Playstation 3, and Nintendo Wii all contain technology that allows parents to password protect games so ones with unsuitable ratings will not load (Lowenstein, 2006).

Finally, since the analysis framework recognized the positive artistic and intellectual value of video games, libraries should not hesitate to add them to their collections. Libraries believe in the collection, preservation and free access of ideas and expressions. This analysis shows video games are just that.

I'm back in town and finished Steven Johnson's book, I'll post my thoughts on that soon. But in the meantime (while I unpack and mow the grass), here's my analysis of video games based on social informatics:

Under a social informatics framework, it is possible to analyze video games through the design, uses and consequences. Specific attention is given to the people, hardware, software, techniques/game-play and cultural structure of the games and the players.

Design: The design of video games software ranges in content appropriate for users ages 3 and older. The ESRB has ratings designed to describe games for 3-6 year olds, 6, 10, 13, 17 and 18 years old and above (Vance, 2006). Video games are designed in a variety of different genres to appeal to various constituencies. There are sports games (Tiger Woods from EA; Mario Tennis from Nintendo), action games (like the previously mention Grand Theft Auto), educational games (Oregon Trail), flight (Microsoft Flight Simulator), life simulators (The Sims), fighting (Mortal Kombat ), puzzle (Tetris) and a variety of other games designs (Buckleitner, 2006). The editor of Children’s Technology Review, Buckleitner (2006), stated in his testimony to the House of Representatives that there “there has never been a better time to pick up a controller and to play (¶5).” This variety of software creates value for the people engaged in and interested to engage in playing video games. The software design is a strength for the players and a strength for the industry since it allows a wide range of expressions and experiences.

Without this variety of design, many players would not find meaningful experiences with the games themselves and the people they are playing with. Many games are playable online with players from across the globe. This multi-player design creates common shared experiences for players from varied cultural background within the United States and around the world. Some multi-player games (World of Warcraft) are designed to encourage player groups (guilds) to form and experience the game together. This specific example creates value and utilizes all components of socio-technical systems (Kling, 1999). The people playing are interacting with the hardware running the software/game using the group experience game-play design technique to advance through the game and by doing so create their own in game sub-culture.

Uses: The courts cited that playing video game software that contain violent game-play elements may serve as an outlet for other violent expression (ESA v. Granholm, 2006). If this is the case then, violent games provide value under a social informatics framework for both the person playing and the cultural structure as a whole.

Consequences: The design of the game-play, in the variety of games mentioned above , includes a wide variety of elements that result in positive consequences. Author/researcher Marc Prensky (2006) claims that kids are learning from video games, and learning more than within traditional educational settings. Although the claim of more than traditional educational settings may be a lofty goal he does site specific skills. Players are learning logic, reasoning, prediction, math, team building, and responsibility from games across genres (Prensky, 2006). While only some of these are skills taught in school, all are qualities society and culture gives value to. Many of these games, from “E” to “M” rated, contain open ended game design that allow a player to explore a game world, interact with other characters and deal with confrontation in a variety of ways (Price, 2006). Games that utilize an open ended design often set up puzzles or tasks for the player to complete in order to move forward. One example of this is the adventure game series by Nintendo, The Legend of Zelda. The game-play challenges from these types of software create what Steven Johnson (2005) calls telescoping. “This skill lies in focusing on immediate problems while still maintaining a long-distance view (Johnson, 2005, p.54).” This skill creates value under social informatics for both the player and the culture as a whole. The planning, multi-tasking, organization skills created through this game-play is a positive consequence.

While these are positive consequences of video games, under social informatics analysis there are other negative consequences as well. The consequences for the players and culture through violent video game software and game-play are well documented by the advocates of video game regulation, as stated earlier. The increased aggressive brain activity and the reaction training that violent games and media create negative consequences on those experiencing the games and those interacting with them later (ESA v. Blagojevich, 2005; ESA v. Granholm, 2006). The consequences are valid and important under social informatics since the technology and the interaction with it play a role in impacting society and the culture as a whole. If violent video games are creating negative consequences while other games are creating positive consequences the value of each type of game may not be equal and additional evidence should be considered.

Other studies on the consequences of video games directly challenge the findings of Dr. Anderson or Dr. Kronenberger in the ESA v. Blagojevich case. The court found that the tests of Dr. Anderson failed to show that video games ever caused a to directly commit a violent act or even increased the level of overall violence in society (ESA v. Granholm, 2006). Dr. Nusbaum, from the University of Chicago, challenged those consequences stating that are multiple behaviors that could show the same results (ESA v. Blagojevich, 2005). These challenges to the negative consequence of both the person/player and the society/culture suggest that the negative consequences are not direct. There research of Dr. Kronenberger does show negative effects of violent media, and under a social informatics framework violent media in general would have a negative value for both the person and the culture.

Given the current state of research on video games the consequences to both the person and the culture are mixed. Video games can provide the value that Prensky and Johnson discussed, but the violent aspect of some games can lead to the results described by Anderson and Kronenberger.