To understand my position, however, you have to make the distinction between the generation gap between digital natives vs. immigrants. The Baby Boomer generation (mine) entertained their children and grandchildren with interactive toys since the cradle, while we had the benefit of a literary education. Of course we see games in a different way than our learners, and anyone who doesn’t see this knows very little about technology (embedded motives in interfaces and applications) and the philosophy thereof.

Moreover, the separation of work and play is a real issue. I enjoy video games, but I don’t want to learn a blessed thing when I’m a GDI general fighting NOD. Neither do I want to download lectures on my free iPod at Duke. And before we invest in an experimental SIMS-based game, like Second Life, let’s be sure we understand what the application is programmed to do.

I weary of educators, especially from the Humanities (and I have an English Ph.D., by the way), telling us about the great learning potentialities in devices programmed for revenue generation. So when discussing issues such as this, let’s do so from a technological perspective and then assess whether the model works outside of a forced or coerced so-called engagement model in class.

Which brings me to my final point: engagement. I think we have reached the tipping point with the annual Indiana survey that fails to assess the difference between engagement and true achievement.

Learning can be difficult for the uninspired, and it is our job to inspire learners without looking to technology to do so, especially when we have little knowledge of technology, outside of what we know as consumers.