Videogames, Learning, And Literacy

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a GameZone.com article interviewing Professor James Paul Gee, the author of a new book advocating videogames as a learning tool. According to Gee, "It dawned on me that good games were learning machines... Many of these [game-contained] principles could be used in schools to get kids to learn things like science, but, too often today schools are returning to skill-and-drill and multiple-choice tests that kill deep learning." He goes on to reference "good learning principles" built into games like System Shock 2, Rise of Nations, and Arcanum, and advocates early gaming for learning: "In my view - and I know it is controversial - kids should be playing games from early on, from three years old, say."

Comments

Learning games

[luzrek]

Ok, now we need to answer the question of which games teach what.

I would like to point out that his discussion of playing games "proactively," or thinking about the design of the games and how they work. From that point of view, just about any game, played that way, should teach some fundamental rules of logic.

I actually have some trouble thinking of which "entertainment" games would be good for teaching individual facts. Several discuss how to make gunpowder (hardly what you want your kids to be doing), but most really screw up most of the fundamental science. Perhaps the best use of video games (also discussed in the article) would be to inspire children (and adults) to look stuff up. It's kind'a off topic, but I've read a lot about mythology since Stargate, SG1 started airing. Video games should be able to inspire similar interests.

As a father of an almost 3 year old kid

[Advocadus Diaboli]

I definitely say NO to this. Yes, I grew up in the good old VC-64 times and I played a lot, but that time I was already a teenager.

In German we use the verb "begreifen" for the process of understanding something that you learn. That verb contains the "greifen" which means that you can grab something. And yes, I believe that kids of 3 years old learn the world by touching it and grabbing things and not by simulating the world on a TV monitor.

And BTW, for my kid I found a sort of "catalyst" to make her learn. Its simple, cheap, runs without batteries and she enjoys it a lot: Books.

Re:about time someone recognized

[Moridineas]

I remember in grade school that all the "smart" kids owned NES or PC games.

Possibly because all the families that had enough money to buy these toys were generally better off families. Families that are generally better off generally have parents who are smarter and more high energy. These are exactly the same kind of parents that are more likely to work with kids, talking, encouraging them to read, reading to them, etc from a very young age.

Games and Learning

[tedrlord]

"In my view - and I know it is controversial - kids should be playing games from early on, from three years old, say."

Why the hell is this considered controversial? There's something horribly broken in the adult mind if playing games and learning are separated so badly. Why do people think kids have this urge to play anyway? Learning is the whole point! That's why they do it!

Play is a natural technique for young people and animals to learn the skills they will need as adults. Social skills, survival skills, everything. Our brains are wired so that we play to learn and learn best while playing. It's as simple as that. If educators got this into their heads we would have a much better school system.

Re:Everything in moderation

[fiontan]

In your opinion, what is more educational, a computer simulation or a book?

To rephrase the question (disclaimer: Probably violating the spirit of the parent poster), which is more educational, a Harry Potter novel or a Harry Potter computer/console game? The book teaches literacy through example, while the game (hopefully) teaches problem solving and hand-eye manipulation.

A lot of older games used to cover the literacy front as well - adventure games in particular - but today's push for stunning graphics and voiceovers is removing that tendency. Conversely, the immersion factor is increased, so it is more like the player is actually doing things to some end, rather than asking (telling?) a character to do those same things.

To revisit the book vs game question, I think that there's no good reason why the two should be exclusive. Rather, each should focus on its strengths, and refer to the other when weaker areas are encountered. Rather than having quizzes at the end of textbook chapters, have games included on a CD that requires knowledge (or perhaps even understanding, if the game designer is good enough?) of the chapter content to complete the next level... include a simple checkpoint system so the child is rewarded for getting through each chapter, and encouraged to move on to the next chapter. If chapters have a degree of non-linearity, then this can be reflected in non-linearity of the game plotline.

Something like that would have had me rabid to get through my highschool textbooks, if decently implemented!

If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

now Game developers could put REAL messages in their games.

I remember Civilisation II, and how I was disapointed that the best way to run your government was 'Fundamentalism' and it was minerals for production, farms for food. Very Simple.

Also SimCity3k where the only people that mattered were petitioners who wanted a money making scheme. Just imagine if a SimCity player gets to be mayor of a major city.

Re:Answers the wrong question

[Nick_dm]

I'm not convinced quake doesn't have good implications for brain use. If you look at it as a game where you "run around and shoot people" you may as well be watching some action movie. But a serious player will be doing a lot of things to keep track of what's going on in the game. For example;

1) remembering spawn times for various items (eg. just picked up the armor, so I should return in 25 seconds to pick it up again) a good player should be able to do this for quite a lot of items at once (which won't always have the same gap between spawns)
2) keeping track of your stats and team mates stats and locations,
3) working out opponents possitions from audio cues, map/tactical knowledge, previous experience of playing the oponents.
4) respond to team comunications, either voice comms or text, I've been playing for years and still can't absorb the infomation from a top clan using text comms when I'm watching a game, they can do that while playing (new instructions/information every .5 seconds)
5) Some people will actually keep track of enemies ammo count (normally only in 1on1 games and with non-rapid fire weapons), listening out for explosions and such when the enemy is out of view.

These aren't logical/reasoning skills for the most part, but being able to do this while running around and trying to concentrate on shooting people isn't easy, and is exactly the sort of multi-tasking skills that have been mentioned as the sort fighter pilots use. This also isn't some thing most people have naturally, but I think training your brain up to be able to deal with lots of information like that is useful.

Anyway I think deathmatch games involve a lot more thinking than you might guess :)