5 Comments

  1. Adriana Hollenbeck

    I am glad it’s not about Pokemon in the Classroom. We should not ruin it an let the kids play for the sake of playing. Educators should take ownership of the process without trying to use baits to get the kids’ attention. No! Let’s not teach Math with Pokemon or Social Studies. Let’s not add their names to the Vocabulary words. Perhaps if a teachers learns how to play it, also for the sake of playing and being part of the kids’ world, we would be moving some place. This relationship is precious. I am sure somewhere someone has already started to write a book…

  2. Jen

    Have you seen what James Paul Gee says about Pokemon?

    There are other things children know about each Pokémon (e.g. which type is
    particularly good or bad at fighting which other types). But let’s stop here. What does a
    child have to know to name and recognize Pokémon? The child has to learn a system: the
    Pokémon system. And that system is this: 150 Pokémon names; 16 types; 2 possible
    other Pokémon a given Pokémon can evolve into; 8 possible attack skills from a list of
    hundreds of possible skills. The system is 150 ×16×2×8, and, of course, we have greatly
    simplified the real system.

    I know of no evidence that mastering the Pokémon universe differs by the race, class,
    and gender of children. Poor children do it as well as rich, if they have access to the
    cards, games, or figures.

    He says that if kids can learn Pokemon, it’s almost as important as reading.

Comments are closed.