I'm sure I am not alone in saying that The Oregon Trail was one of my favorite games during my elementary school days. The choices that this game did offer the player was intregueing to me as a child because you got to run the game how you wanted. It also made it easy to personalize your game. I think this was the beginning of a style of many games today, where your character has to make lots of decisions throughout the game that determine what you'll encounter next.
I felt that Bigelow was unnecessarily harsh to The Oregon Trail. I don't say this only because I enjoyed playing the game as a kid, or at least, I don't think so. I felt that some of his points were over-the-top. Bigelow's claims support that The Oregon Trail is incredibly inaccurate beyond the surface facts. He pretty much bashes the way they represent every group - women, African Americans, Native Americans, men, etc.
I found it really interesting that in his article, Bigelow argues that "The Oregon Trail players need not take into account the lives of others unless it's necessary to do so in order to accomplish their personal objectives" (88), failing to give an example of one game where the player is not the main character. I cannot think of any other game where the player is a side character that contributes to another character's objectives. In order for the game to be enjoyable, of course the player will make decisions on their own behalf to advance further in the game. I don't think players would be very excited about playing the game if their character was not the focus, to be honest.
Bigelow notes that this game doesn't accurately portray the west migration/invasion since "the one choice The Oregon Trail programmers don't offer students-as-trekkers is the choice to harm Indians" (89). This is peculiar to me because imagine if the programmers did offer that choice... I'm sure this would put them in much more trouble with people like Bigelow.
I can see how the article holds some truth in that the game does not give the full picture to the player of the lives of people involved along the journey. However, I do think that perhaps some of the deeper relationships among groups of people were left out since the game is designed for students ages 6-15. A six year old might be very confused when a character says he/she is a slave or that there was much violence between the Natives and the Whites.
Though this blog is getting long, I wanted to share one more thought.
I did like the last two pages of this article. It wasn't all bad.
I thought Bigelow presented some good considerations for teachers. We should definitely critically think about what we expose our students to, both on the computer and off. Biases are unavoidable, but we can still try our best to make more informed decisions about materials and curricula.
In my practicum last year, the second graders were doing a simulation of the Oregon Trail in groups of four. Each team got really into it, making decisions together and keeping journals of their second hand experiences on the trail. It worked out really well and made for some good discussions when students were posed with challenges and decisions to make for their teams.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hanna, I like your response to this article. Like you, I found it not all bad, but found many comments to be over-the-top. I liked what you had to say about the ages this game wa made for. It was not made for 18+ year olds who are trying to get a whole history lesson about the Oregon Trail. It was made for younger students. It was a great overview of what the Oregon Trail was like. The things the author said was racist, wasn't racist of the makers of the game. Racism was stil heavilypresent during that time. The makers of the game were being historically accurate. You cannot argue with that.
ReplyDeleteHanna - I agree with much of what you said in your blog. Bigelow seemed a little harsh in his criticism of women, African-Americans, Native-Americans, etc. If we use this game in our future classrooms we will have to be very careful of what we tell our students before we let them play this game. I think it's interesting that you pointed out Bigelow saying how the game gives an "overview" of the Oregon Trail. Bigelow seemed very critical of this point - yet I am left wondering HOW would you create a computer game that could teach students everything they needed to know about a topic as large as The Oregon Trail? It's definitely something we need to consider in our use of such games.
ReplyDeleteHanna! Great response, I think you communicated very well what I wanted to say in my blog. I agree this article is over the top and somewhat defensive. I admit by the end I was happy to finish the blog because it was very negative! I like how you noted that young children may actually have difficulty understanding the perspective of a slave and that this could actually be more harmful than good for the child's learning. I liked how you included a personal experience where you have seen how effective the Oregon Trail can be. I think we can all learn a lot from this article and we can also form our own opinions about this game and other such programs we may use in our future classrooms.
ReplyDeleteHanna,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the points you are making and I shared many common views in my response to the article. I too enjoyed playing the game. I was completely unaware of what biases or misrepresentations were present while playing the game. I also thought that a game designed for elementary students, would be highly inappropriate if it were filled with violence and racist or sexist slants. We do need to be careful about what we subject our students to because they might be internalizing these ideals without even realizing (although I do not believe this is the case in this game). I don't think games were ever meant to be the primary mode of teaching a topic...that is why we are in school...to ultimately teach! I feel that CD-ROMs should definitely be used as a free-time type of activity.