Are you a good learning theory or a bad learning theory?

State of the Art Instructional Video Games Working my way through the current issue of Innovate Online, from Nova Southeastern. J.P. Gee opines that successful video games are based on "good theories of learning" while much traditional instruction is based on "bad theories." It will be interesting to see how he dichotomizes them. Gee says that distributed authentic professional expertise (DAPE - my acronym) is a "good learning theory. He doesn't say why, other than to note that the real world is typically characterized by this. While I agree with his premise that dropping an unguided learner into a rich environment is not a good idea, that doesn't automatically make DAPE "good learning theory." He says this: "Good video games, like Full Spectrum Warrior, distribute authentic professional expertise between the virtual character(s) and the real-world player." Maybe I'm reading in a syllogism that doesn't exist, but there are plenty of good games without DAPE. And I suspect there are DAPEful games that are lousy games. But maybe I'm seeing things that aren't there. Back to the article... Alright, finished. I'm disappointed. Gee didn't really explain why DAPE is superior. Indeed, his "state of the art" instructional model looks an awful like cogntive apprenticeship, a topic on which I presented way back in 1997. Well, on tot he next article.